Dean's List

I saw John Dean on Keith Olbermann's show. At first I thought it was a put-on, but Dean was serious. (And Olbermann seemed to be buying it.)

Dean has a new book out attacking conservatives. Fine, that's what partisans do. But he wasn't merely claiming conservatives are wrong, he said they naturally desire authoritarianism and are impervious to facts. Worse (or should I say funnier), he actually claimed it wasn't his opinion, it was a truth revealed by decades of scientific research.

Where had I heard this argument before? Of course, in the Soviet Union, where political disagreement was considered a psychiatric disorder.

The only response is to make sure men like Dean never (again?) have any real power.

Columbus Guy says: By "Soviet Union," do you mean "Berkeley"? (I tried to sort out a best line, but it's just not possible. Read the whole thing. It's a riot from top to bottom: "Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article. . . . They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.
"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.
This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised."

So let's see if I read this right. Liberals suffer a Bill Clinton weakness, e.g., "I care too much," and, to be fair, let's acknoweldge that conservatives have strengths, e.g., if you want a Nazi movement, they're your guys.)