A few weeks ago, I had the misfortune of reading John W. Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience.
When I say “misfortune,” I’m not implying that CWC is a reeking chunk of glib, sanctimonious bullshit, and I’d like to make that clear. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather like Greg Palast’s Armed Madhouse, only half of the book qualifies as a reeking chunk of glib, sanctimonious bullshit.
(I found both titles on Barnes & Noble’s “bargain” table for a mere four smackers a pop, incidentally. Bein’ a total fuckin’ gentleman an’ all that, I’ll politely ignore the possibility of an inversely proportionate relationship ‘twixt final sale price and taurine feces-content…)
However much I loathed the book, honesty demands that I concede its merits. Conservatives Without Conscience is a razor-edged indictment of the pseudo-conservatism that has fulfilled Leonard Peikoff’s direst predictions (see his magnum opus, The Ominous Parallels; easily one of the most important and underrated books of the twentieth century). Paradoxically, it also provides a fascinating look into the mind of a wimped-out, compromise-prone, wouldn’t-say-“shit”-if-he-had-a-mouthful “moderate.”
Before stomping both book and author into the pavement, I’ll admit that Dean’s anger at the right in general – and the neocons in particular – is justified. The despicable treatment he and his wife received at the hands of G. Gordon Liddy, Chuck Colson, Len Colodny and their cronies (last seen inhabiting a herd of swine in the land of the Gadarenes) was enough to turn Mother Teresa into Mad Max. His analysis of conservatism’s disturbing, authoritarian shift is spot-on, and he does a very nice job of serving up the goods on such neocon idols as Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and Dick Cheney.
That, however, is the best that can be said for Conservatives Without Conscience.
Far from being the “moderate” conservative and anti-authoritarian he’d have the reader believe, Dean is little more than an apologist/whitewasher for the radical left -- and a man with an axe to grind.
The latter is understandable and forgivable: I’d sooner condemn Vlad the Impaler’s anti-Ottoman crusade than Dean’s pitiful swats at those who slandered him and his loved ones. The former, though, is neither understandable nor forgivable, considering his professed convictions.
Now I enjoy a good, old-fashioned Donnybrook and/or venom-spitting polemic as much as the next guy, OK?
Hell, I enjoy the latter so much; I actually write ‘em now and again. Unlike Dean, though, I don’t cringe behind a pious façade of civility when launching personal attacks and/or counterattacks: You fuck with the bull; you get the horns -- end of discussion.
Johnny-boy, on the other hand, has no problem with donning a phony halo whilst exchanging ballshots with his opponents, low blow for low blow.
In case the Gentle Reader hasn’t guessed, I find the halo far more irritating than the ballshots. I respect men who choose to remain above the fray, remain silent, and let the facts (and instant replay) justify them. I also respect men who, once the black flag is unfurled and “Havoc!” cried; toss the gloves aside and advance; grinning, cracking their knuckles, and growling: “OK, jerkoff. You just signed your own fuckin’ death warrant. You wanna play rough? Let’s play rough then, by God!”
What I simply can’t abide is a squealing wanker who, after having a piece of his ear bitten off, gouges his opponent’s eyes – but still claims to be playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
John W. Dean – alas and alack -- is such a wanker.
In the light of Liddy & Co.’s despicable innuendoes, Dean was completely justified in pointing out that “Clitty” hid behind own his wife’s petticoats by signing his assets over to her while slandering ol’ Johnny and the missus. And slander it was, to be sure – albeit of a chickenshit, underhanded, plausibly deniable variety. According to Dean, the “Rodent Gourmet” (read Liddy’s Will -- you’ll get it…) and his pals, Coldsore and Colostomy, implied that Dean’s wife was a high-priced hooker, selling her ass to the DC elite.
That’s dirty pool, boys and ghouls -- and payback is a medevac. Under identical circumstances, I’d be tempted to trawl the Southside and ply the first loadie I met with $500.00 and a line of coke in exchange for alleging that Liddy, Colson and Colodny (dressed as Roller Derby queens and demanding that their six-year-old victim address them as “Gi-gi,” “Charlene” and “Lenora,” respectively) had molested him during a 1972 field trip to the Whitehouse.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn’t see it through. I’d still be sorely tempted, though; and if by chance I did retaliate in kind, I’d call it flat-out vengeance and nothing else. But that’s just me…
In dragging Liddy’s ol’ lady into the mess – even peripherally -- Dean retaliated in kind, but refuses admit it.
If it’s fair to assume that a man of Dean’s educational and professional accomplishments (White House legal counsel to Richard Nixon, chief minority counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee and associate deputy Attorney General) is sufficiently intelligent to judge methodological merit, then it’s equally fair to assume that he’s either an outright nutcase or pathologically dishonest. Admittedly, Dean does a wonderful job of exposing the slimy, Hitlerian underbelly of modern pseudo-conservatism. In so doing, though, he completely ignores the same side of modern liberalism. So much so, that upon reading his words, one would believe authoritarianism and elitism to be the exclusive preserve of the modern right.
In Dean’s alternate universe, only conservatives are capable of authoritarian attitudes. Having seen Ruby Ridge, Waco, “Know Your Customer,” “hate crime” laws and so-called “political correctness” (all the handiwork of the left, lest anyone need reminding), I found this rather odd. (I also wish I could have met Dean a few years ago, before I cleaned up my act -- whatever he’s on must be some really good shit…)
The veil of oddness was abruptly snatched away when I reached chapter two, thereby allowing the clear light of bullshit detection to shine in. As it happens, Dean – by his own admission – lifted his criteria for determining a given person’s degree of authoritarianism directly from Robert Altenmeyer’s so-called “RWA scale.”
The RWA scale, bluntly put, is a methodological nightmare. The survey used to measure it is a veritable DMZ of semantic landmines, binary thinking and non-sequiturs -- as objective as Das Kapital and as scientific as the Malleus Maleficarum. Worst of all, perhaps, it’s a “survey” in name only. Like a corporate “employee feedback” survey, Altenmeyer’s leaves the hapless respondent only: “agree strongly,” “agree,” “neutral,” “disagree,” and “disagree strongly,” as replies to a series of dubious statements, some of which are non-sequiturs or utterly pointless.
If, for example, I disagree with statement #18, “There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse,” I’m an authoritarian.
Well, I think there’s plenty wrong with it. I think it’s a sin, I think it cheapens sex overall, that it leads one to regard others as mere objects of self-gratification instead of actual human beings. In short, I disapprove of it very strongly. Not once, though, did I say it should be outlawed. So now having moral standards is somehow “authoritarian,” is that it, boys?
This, by the way, is where the Altenmeyers and Deans of the world step on their own peckers (meseemeth they have very, very short legs). The “anything goes” attitude they imply is the mark of a healthy mind apparently doesn’t include accepting so-called “authoritarian” attitudes in others – as long as they don’t try to force them on anyone else.
Let’s take another of my personal favorites, number 15:
“Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the ‘normal way things are supposed to be done.’
Seems innocuous, doesn’t it? Well look again, and note the choice of conjunctions in the third clause. It’s a “package deal.” In order to agree or disagree, I must first concede that some of the best people in our country are engaged in all three activities. He wrote “and,” folks. Not “or.”
Moreover, Altenmeyer’s statement presupposes a fixed (but unmentioned) standard of “good,” and that some people are, in fact, “better” than others. Fine -- but by whose standards? Ah, well. Who cares? If I say that Thomas Jefferson was a better man than Pol Pot, I’m safe, right? Both men engaged in all three behaviors, but by my standards, Jefferson was one of the best people our country ever produced.
A harmless word game, n’est ce pas?
It would be, except that in his book, John Dean combines it with the Social Dominance Orientation Survey (cooked up by four gents names Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle) when defining “right wing authoritarians.” In this gem of a survey, agreeing with the statements “Some people are just more worthy than others,” and “Some people are just inferior to others” is a sure sign of authoritarianism.
B-b-but wait! I just agreed that many shit-stirrers are among the best of us! How can I be an authoritarian?
For the record, I do think many shit-stirrers are among the best of us. Unfortunately, Dean’s twisted mix of the RWA and SDO surveys leaves the respondent “damned if [he does] and damned if [he doesn’t].” If I concede that my favorite shit-stirrers are among the best of us, I have to admit that (by definition, mind you – “best” is the superlative form of the adjective “good”) some folks ain’t exactly their equals.
Hopefully, the Gentle Reader gets the picture.
As the RWA and SDO surveys are copyright, I’ve only included a few items from each, for the sake of criticism/review/lampooning. Now, since I haven’t the time to shred a thirty-five-question quiz, I’ll post my own “LWA” survey.
- The established academic authorities are correct on most matters, while those without degrees are usually just “loudmouths” showing their ignorance.
- The marriage “contract” should have no legal weight, and should be a purely private/religious matter.
- Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to redistribute wealth, destroy the old-fashioned ways and enforce all forms of equality.
- Hunters, smokers, and pro-lifers are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
- It is always better to trust the judgment of the recognized authorities in government and academia than to listen to the noisy reactionaries in our society, who are trying to impede progress.
- Those who maintain the religious and cultural traditions of their ancestors are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who have rejected them.
- The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to reject our traditional values completely, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers who question progressive ideas.
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with home schooling.
- Our country needs people who judge ideas on their merits, rather than upon whether they’re old or new.
- Previous civilizations may have arrived at workable solutions to social problems that trouble us today, and should be studied.
- No one should be forced to associate with company not of his choosing.
- “Old fashioned” ways and values are of no merit in a changing world.
- You have to admire those who challenged a nine-man panel’s views and the law by protesting for gun ownership, for freedom of speech, or to abolish property taxes.
- Gun owners and pro-lifers should be praised for being brave enough to defy Supreme Court rulings.
- It is better to have hateful and intolerant speech in our communities than to allow the government the power to censor them.
- The situation is getting so serious; the strongest methods would be justified if they led to consensus and social harmony.
Well, that about does it for today. Take the test and figure out whether or not you’re an authoritarian. Here’s the definition of the word, as per the American Heritage Dictionary, by the way: “Characterized by or favoring obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.”
The exclusive preserve of so-called “conservatives?” I think not. Just think Janet Reno…
Comments