Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com posted a summary of the book Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics:
…authoritarianism is really about order–achieving it, maintaining it, and affirming it–and especially when citizens are uncertain or fearful. This, they say, is why authoritarians seek out and elevate, well, authorities–because authorities impose order on an otherwise disordered world. They provide a useful review the existing literature on authoritarian traits, which have been connected to negative racist stereotyping, a belief in biblical inerrancy, a preference for simple rather than complex problem-solving, and low levels of political information.
The authors, Marc Hetherinton and Jonathan Weiler, provide a breakdown of average levels of authoritarianism in the U.S. based on various characteristics:
Over at the Huffington Post, Weiler discusses the connection between authoritarianism and racial attitudes:
Authoritarian-minded individuals are, after all, likely to judge more negatively minority groups and those negative judgments, in turn, inform a host of political positions…
We find that in a politics organized by authoritarianism, even non-racial issues are becoming a matter of race and, more broadly, are taking on more visceral symbolic significance…
In sum, there is reason to think that beneath the arguments about government intrusion into the health care market, death panels, and such, a much more visceral dynamic is at work. To be perfectly clear, it is far from the case that every opponent or skeptic of significant health-care reform is a racist or racially motivated in her or his thinking. But there is, at the least, very strong circumstantial evidence that views of race and beliefs about health care reform are linked significantly among many Americans, which probably explains why the debate on health care reform has caused a much stronger uproar in 2009 than it did in 1994.
For an example of this type of racial resentment, see our recent post on Rush Limbaugh’s description of “Obama’s America.”
Comments 13
Jesse Wozniak — October 12, 2009
I have no doubt there's a racial component to this, and no doubt that racists would tend to support more authoritarian style governments, as history has shown.
However, I'm interested for an explanation for the number associated with the "inner city" contingent. Taking this to be a coded word for black (as it almost always is -- correct me if I'm wrong), it's interesting that the number is higher than either large city or suburb, and is approaching small town.
Again, I don't question the racial animosity/authoritarianism link, but I think there's more going on here, as the racial angle would mostly explain only white support for authoritarianism. How do they explain minority support?
Gwen — October 12, 2009
I'm betting that in the book they have a more detailed analysis, but the book is checked out of our library so I haven't been able to get it yet to see. And of course people may be authoritarian on some issues but not others. For instance, it may be that "inner city" residents (which, yes, is usually code for Black) don't rank particularly highly on this particular element usually associated with authoritarianism. Or they may hold anti-immigrant attitudes, seeing Latinos as threats to jobs Blacks would otherwise hold (there's evidence of anti-Latino sentiment among African Americans).
I'm anxious to get the book and read the rest of their analysis. It's a fascinating concept at the least.
Marc — October 12, 2009
I guess the each of the respondents simply held out their authoritarianism so it could be measured with a ruler?
Posts about Huffington Post as of October 12, 2009 » The Daily Parr — October 12, 2009
[...] Show AHN Christmas in October: This week’s holiday releases from Archuleta , Dylan … Characteristics Associated with Authoritarianism in the U.S. – thesocietypages.org 10/12/2009 Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com posted a summary of the book [...]
Village Idiot — October 12, 2009
I truly savor the astonished expression on the faces of those who would so stridently impose Order as they behold the Chaos their efforts inevitably manifest. It's a Law so fundamental to this universe that God must have written it Herself: "A rigid imposition of Order necessarily leads to an escalation of Chaos." And vice-versa of course, but the Orderlies never get any of that through their willfully-ignorant heads.
So, the more authoritarian society in general seeks to become, the more chaotic it will get and watching these trends is helpful for predicting when it's time to get the Hell out of Dodge. History has many precedents and we best heed them.
Not that anyone asked, but the obvious growing trend of authoritarianism in the U.S. will eventually demand a very prudent response from Chaosticians like me, so I'm planning to pop some popcorn and watch the show from New Zealand or parts thereabout. It's best not to attract the lemmings' attention when they're feeling empowered if you're not in lockstep with the True Believers. They tend to hit you with blunt objects (if you're lucky) to convince you to reconsider your position (trust me on that one).
tiffany — October 12, 2009
Was anyone else nonplussed by the categories of south and non-south? Not only are theses categories not explained, they seem incredibly (literally) artificial. Am I to believe that the NE, MW, West, and SW are all the same level of authoritarian?
Sighter — October 13, 2009
The religious category groupings are atrocious. Failing to split out the various forms and flavors of religious beliefs -- there are centrist, liberal, and conservative variants in each of the broad headings listed -- leads to a tool that isn't very predictive or valuable regarding the specific impact of "religion" on the variables.
At least they split out Mainline and Evangelical Protestants. But still, it's an exceedingly unrefined measure and rife for misinterpretation.
pg — October 13, 2009
I wonder how this data would correlate to this piece on the apparent decline of American desire for gun control, over at the Economist: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14632169
It specifically made me think of this comment left on the Economist piece:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"This should come as no surprise. Over the last fifty years America has balkanized into competing ethnocentric factions and tribes. These ethno-centric tribes demand that "our" versions of history and literature are taught in public schools, special holidays are designated for "our" heroes, and special "set asides" in employment are reserved for "our" people. Worse, political correctness holds sway in public discourse, making rational discussion of significant issues almost impossible. Furthermore, as is true in most of Western Erurope, mushy and paralyzing relativsm rules in religious institutions and other institutions, the exception being the abrasive and exclusive certainties put forth by the ethnocentric leaders. Adding to the mistrust among people is uncontrolled crime that is fueld by drugs and the lyrics of hateful "music" and that take a deadly toll on school children, especially those who show signs of not wanting to be part of culture of drugs, chaos, and hate and that make entire sections of cities "no-go" areas. Finally, with good reason, government and especially members of Congress are viewed by nearly all Americans with disdain, contempt, and outright fear.
Given these conditions, is it any wonder support for banning certain guns is plummeting? Given these conditions, would anyone but a fool want to be unarmed?"
----------------------------------------
This seems like a not-so-thinly-veiled justification of gun ownership based on racism - fear of other races, probably Blacks in particular, classism, and anti-intellectualism to some degree. It's interesting that the pro-gun and anti-gun camps both probably find the other side to be authoritarian.
Village Idiot — October 14, 2009
Arschloch? Sie müssen eine Troll sein.