|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
The Authoritarianism of Right-Wing Radio |
Current rating: 0 |
by Guy Reel
(No verified email address) |
11 Aug 2006
|
More troubling than these categories are those who adopt the characteristics of the authoritarians AND the social dominators. These people are unaware of their own hypocrisies – consider the religious right’s defense of detainee abuse, war, tax cuts for the wealthy and aid cuts for the poor – while believing their own motives not only right but necessary to win against a litany of enemies, including “liberals.” Such people also have an uncanny ability to merely stop thinking about something if it doesn’t fit in with their worldview. In addition, they are openly hostile and aggressive toward those who disagree with them.
Lakoff has also examined the thought processes of conservatives in his “Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea.” In this work, Lakoff concludes that in many cases those on the right consider only notions of direct causation for problems and solutions, while liberals more often think of the systemic factors in problems and solutions. |
In his new book “Conservatives Without Conscience,” John Dean describes his journey to discover why some of today’s right-wingers have drifted so far astray from many of the classic notions of conservatism – limited government, limited executive power, reduced foreign entanglements, respect for individual rights, etc. What he found is rather alarming – he concludes that among many of today’s right-wing are streaks of both authoritarianism and a personality type described as “social dominance orientation.”
Dean’s ideas, along with UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff’s notions of framing of political debate, explain a lot about how those on the right side of the spectrum think – and why right-wing talk radio is successful while “liberal” talk struggles.
According to Dean, authoritarians see the world as a competition in which the strong and righteous prevail and prosper; failure is tantamount to weakness or unworthiness. These authoritarians believe the world is dangerous and threatening, and the best way to fight “evil” is through force. Social dominators, on the other hand, scoff at notions of equality and will move forward with little conscience or restraint. They don’t believe much in right or wrong – it’s more about what they can get away with. (If that seems harsh, notes Dean, this is not his view – it’s how these people describe themselves when they undertake personality tests.)
More troubling than these categories are those who adopt the characteristics of the authoritarians AND the social dominators. These people are unaware of their own hypocrisies – consider the religious right’s defense of detainee abuse, war, tax cuts for the wealthy and aid cuts for the poor – while believing their own motives not only right but necessary to win against a litany of enemies, including “liberals.” Such people also have an uncanny ability to merely stop thinking about something if it doesn’t fit in with their worldview. In addition, they are openly hostile and aggressive toward those who disagree with them.
Lakoff has also examined the thought processes of conservatives in his “Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea.” In this work, Lakoff concludes that in many cases those on the right consider only notions of direct causation for problems and solutions, while liberals more often think of the systemic factors in problems and solutions. For example, a conservative might believe that to fight crime, we should stiffen sentences, imprison more people and build more prisons to house them. This is a class direct-cause-response mechanism for fighting crime. Liberals, on the other hand, may see an array of factors that produce crime, including individual responsibility, poverty, lack of education, lack of role models, opportunity, etc. Thus, to fight crime, a liberal might argue for better education and job opportunities – options that are far less expensive than building new prisons and housing people for long-term sentences. Yet, among dominators with authoritarian/direct-cause thought processes, the idea of improving education to fight crime is ludicrous and soft. And many will despise anyone who would suggest otherwise.
This may explain why conservatives claim to believe that liberals are beholden to a “belief system” that doesn’t fit with reality. It’s much easier – and for many, makes more sense — to simply think of the “war on terror,” or “good vs. evil” than to consider gradations of history, economics and politics as responsible for a complicated world in which a variety of responses are necessary to fight terrorism. In their vitriol, they may express their contempt in different ways – as a rejection of nuance, or as a repudiation of the “church of liberalism.” Right-wing Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania described liberalism as an ideology, while maintaining that conservatism is common sense. For these thinkers, according to some psychologists, it is impossible for them to consider these matters in any other way.
Lakoff says the conservative way of thinking is more of the “strict father” mode while liberal thinking is more like the “nurturant mother.” The strict father tells us what’s good for us and we’d better obey. The father is the last word. That’s why talk radio works so well for the right-wing worldview. The father preaches to the children, and they follow blindly, with devotion, while sputtering frothy, childish contempt for anyone who disagrees.
Thus, the hosts of the right-wing radio programs, from Limbaugh to Hannity to Savage — to all the local right-wingers in cities across America — are almost all authoritarians, “strict-father” in their worldview, and social dominators. In other words, they blame victims (consider their laughing at Katrina victims), liberals and media for any problems that arise in the world, and insult anyone who disagrees. The answers to problems are simple and usually involve strength. The format of these talk shows gives them a forum to monologue while taking puff calls from supporters, or “dittoheads,” who have exactly the same view.
Consider some of the common direct-cause/authoritarian frames that you can hear on right-wing radio:
The “drive-by” media are liberal and hate Bush. They must be fought at every turn.
We are fighting World War III and any response other than a warlike one is tantamount to treason.
Liberals don’t want you to know the truth because they want to suppress you. We must expose liberals everywhere.
Government is the enemy of prosperity. Taxes stunt growth. We must cut government and lower taxes, particularly on the rich.
Never mind that the actual facts get in the way of these statements. That doesn’t matter if you’re a social dominator. What’s important is winning, not whether what you say is true.
But if you accept these arguments, then the outcome of attempts by liberal talk show hosts to imitate the format and the vitriol of the world’s Limbaughs is easy to predict – it won’t work. Liberal talk-show hosts (such as, for example, Randi Rhodes) come across as trying to imitate the characteristics of authoritarian/social dominators, and the resulting tone doesn’t fit with the message – that the problems and solutions to our problems are complicated and require a variety of strategies. For example, one might argue that the best way to fight the war on terror is through special ops, police work, top-rate intelligence AND terrific force. That’s a bunch of gobbledygook for the right-wingers. It’s good versus evil, they say. Kill them all. Never mind that that strategy only leads to more terror. It’s cause and effect, and it is impossible for them to think differently about the problem.
The so-called “liberal” radio that does work – most notably NPR – is given to lengthy reports on the issues, often including multiple perspectives. That is why those who wish for a liberal Rush Limbaugh are misguided. There can’t be a liberal Limbaugh. There can only be a response that indicates what most people already know, deep down: We must work together to find multiple solutions to fight problems and defeat enemies; any other way is simply suicide.
Guy Reel is an assistant professor of mass communication at Winthrop University. He can be reached at reelg (at) winthrop.edu.
Copyright 2006 Mark LeVine |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
