Friday, May 9, 2014


M. Night Shyamalan’s Oscar-nominated movie “The Sixth Sense” has a memorable line from Haley Joel Osment.  The actor states, “I see dead people.”

It is powerful because it makes no sense.  The line is delivered by a person who appears to be under medical scrutiny.  Why would he say such a thing?

We don’t understand the impact until events further evolve.  At that time, the effect becomes profound.

The same could be said about the idea of Authoritarianism.  It is a term we learn in school, and never give a second thought.  We never personalize it.  We don’t see the bully at school as an authoritarian.  We don’t see the spoiled child as an authoritarian.  We don’t see gang activity as an example of Authoritarianism.

Is it because Authoritarianism has not been placed under scrutiny?  Maybe Authoritarianism suffers from a type of academic misrepresentation.

A retired psychology professor at the University of Manitoba in Canada wrote a paper on Authoritarianism in 2006.  The title of Professor Bob Altemeyer’s paper is “The Authoritarians” and it is extensively referenced on the Internet.

The paper deals with political conservatives in America, with the author representing this group as “Right Wing Authoritarians.”  He devises an RWA scale to define and categorize them.

This exercise has the academic imprimatur necessary to give it a level of credibility, but does it properly represent Authoritarianism?  Is Authoritarianism simply an affliction of American Conservatives?

Do we see authoritarian characteristics in autocratic rulers?  Do we deal with people in our penal system differently depending on whether the individual has authoritarian behaviors?  Do people become more or less authoritarian as they age?
These questions imply a multidimensional quality to authoritarians.  If we think of Authoritarianism as nothing more than a type of political behavior, we are missing the larger picture.  It deserves some investigation.


General George S. Patton, III was commander of mechanized forces in the European Theater during World War II.  “Old Blood and Guts” was a colorful figure with impolitic mannerisms.

The 1970 movie “Patton” featured George C. Scott playing the role of General Patton.  One of the classic lines from the film has General Patton outmaneuvering his opponent, the German General Erwin Rommel.  General Patton finds his tactics validated, and exclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!”

It is likely that one of these individuals (or both) was an authoritarian.

The 2011 movie “The Intouchables” stars Franรงois Cluzet and Omar Sy.  It is about two individuals who form an unlikely alliance.  The film explores the relationship that develops between two people from decidedly different stations in life.  The story is intriguing because it brings together two disparate authoritarian personalities and allows us to watch them learn to coexist. 

We find it fascinating, and we are intrigued by it because we know authoritarians can create chaos.  We want to know how far they will go.  There is excitement!

But that doesn’t mean we seek to be directly involved with authoritarians.  Most of us work to minimize the influence of authoritarians in our daily lives.  Authoritarians are “high maintenance” individuals.

Each and every one of us has had to deal with authoritarians on a personal basis.  As children, we realize that we are expected to share with our siblings and classmates.  Perhaps you recall the task of making a helping of dessert “fair” by allowing one person to cut the portion while the other gets first choice.  It acknowledges the human characteristic of wishing to bring advantage to oneself before providing for others.

We see that authoritarian tendencies are normal behavior.  It’s just that they often need to be tempered.

In “normal” human interaction, we find ourselves being the authoritarian from time to time, and then allowing others to take on the role.   It is a kind of “dominant” and “deferring” behavior.  We get our way at times and then defer to others.

Look at your personal friendships.  You may take the lead in certain activities, but your friend will take the lead in others.  That “give and take” is what leads to a lasting relationship.  If the relationship becomes one-sided, it tends to be unsuccessful.  Human beings do not like being in a perpetually deferring situation.

And that leads us to the idea of authoritarian tendencies being taken to the extreme.  How do we separate the dominant and deferring behavior of a “normal” individual from the more aggressive behaviors of an authoritarian?

There are two defining characteristics:

            --An authoritarian is never wrong.

            --An authoritarian acts with impunity.

That incorporates a wide range of human behaviors, from the despotism of someone like North Korea’s Kim Jong-un to the juvenile antics of a neighborhood bully.  The bully may not be in the same league as The Supreme Leader, but will still exhibit the tendencies.  The bully believes he (or she) is never wrong, and wishes to act with impunity.  The despot has absolute authority while the bully desires absolute authority.

The impact of authoritarian activities is vast and varied, yet the defining characteristics are the same across the complete spectrum of Authoritarianism.  An individual is identifiable as an authoritarian at different times throughout life, and our culture intervenes if the individual’s behavior generates adverse societal impact.

Our culture has typically works in an institutional fashion.  Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani cites his 1990s “Broken Windows” crime prevention program as reducing serious crime in New York City.  While the issue has been given a political tone, it would be interesting to see it studied from an authoritarian standpoint.  If a society is successful in correcting disruptive authoritarian behaviors at an early stage, does it result in less devastating authoritarian behaviors at a later time?

While that question deserves to be studied, our culture seems predisposed to study the opposite side of the issue.  We find greater concern for individuals who lack self esteem than for those with authoritarian tendencies.

That may simply be an issue of personal safety.  A person with low self esteem is typically not as significant a danger as a person who exhibits bullying tendencies. We may be less inclined to study people who pose a threat.

There is also the “profiling” issue.  If we label an individual as authoritarian at an early age, can he or she be rehabilitated?  If so, how does that “authoritarian” label get dropped?

Studying the subject of Authoritarianism is fraught with all the sociological dangers, but with the additional problem of being a new field of study.  Our culture has expectations, and conclusions would end up being challenged in an emotional environment by the various institutional stakeholders.  Things could get ugly!

Even so, there is too much of interest to be ignored.  Here are a few questions to consider:

            --When can authoritarian behavior be identified?  Should elementary school behaviors be off the table?

            --Can extreme authoritarian behavior be corrected?  Are there options other than incarceration?

            --Do we become more authoritarian as we age?  Should healthcare protocols be adapted?

That last question is interesting because we implicitly acknowledge authoritarian tendencies with age.  We understand “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” and that “we get set in our ways” as we get older.

Both of those characterizations attach almost exclusively to older people.  While the descriptors are less severe than “never being wrong” or “acting with impunity,” they are nonetheless on the authoritarian side of the behavior spectrum.

American culture remains uninterested in authoritarian behaviors, as we prefer to work on the “low esteem” side of things.  That seems curious.  It’s like studying high tide without studying low tide.  Shouldn’t we be interested in the complete picture?

“The Complete Picture” requires an examination of the physiological/pathological side of authoritarian behavior.  Human beings have specific physical attributes that impact our behaviors.

It has to do with the way our brains operate.

UPDATE 8/19/2014:
Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal brings us up to date on the "Broken Windows" crime-prevention program noted above.  He sees a connection between this month's rioting in Ferguson, Missouri and the fall of Fallujah in January, 2014.


Dr. Iain McGilchrist published a book in 2009 titled “The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World.”  Completed after more than 20 years of work, Dr. McGilchrist’s book devotes 500 pages to the study of the human brain.  His work is remarkable for its dramatic hypothesis: The human brain is two separately functioning organs.

In the same fashion that human beings have a left arm and a right arm, the brain has a left hemisphere and a right hemisphere.  The hemispheres are similar, but function separately.  The central tenet of McGilchrist’s research comes in the Introduction to his work:
My thesis is that for us as human beings there are two fundamentally opposed realities, two different modes of experience; that each is of ultimate importance in bringing about the recognizably human world; and that their difference is rooted in the bi-hemispheric structure of the brain.  It follows that the hemispheres need to co-operate, but I believe they are in fact involved in a sort of power struggle, and that this explains many aspects of contemporary Western culture.
 Dr. McGilchrist sees the right hemisphere as “The Master” in his thesis, with the left hemisphere as “The Emissary.”  The right hemisphere is more adventurous, directing our actions and seeking to understand and formulate the human experience.  The left hemisphere is more rigorous, attempting to map our behavior to a known set of rules and guidelines.

While Dr. McGilchrist does not use this analogy, I see the left hemisphere as the authoritarian side of the brain.  The right hemisphere is curious and welcoming; the left hemisphere is more rigid and self-centered.  The left hemisphere lacks self-doubt.

The characterizations used by Iain McGilchrist are a departure from conventional descriptions of the hemispheres of the brain.  We are taught that the hemispheres represent a “creative side” and an “analytical side.”  The left brain is more data-driven while the right brain is artistic.

McGilchrist extends this concept by formulating a mediation process where the left hemisphere tells the right hemisphere how to perform based on the reality known to the left hemisphere.  The right hemisphere must compare this understanding to the situation that is currently presented, and decide whether to act based upon what it “knows” or what it “sees.”

It brings up the Marx Brothers line, “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

That is the genius of Iain McGilchrist’s work.  He relates the interactions of our brain to well-understood human behaviors.  We understand how the hemispheres relate to each other because we have our own personal examples of that kind of behavior.

The right brain must dominate our early childhood because the left brain is still an empty slate.  The right brain must use a parent or guardian as a proxy for the left brain because the left brain is not developed and is not able to share its experience.

As we get older, we depend more on our left hemisphere.  It is our life experience.  It helps us navigate unexpected events that we encounter.  It also keeps us functional as we lose the desire for right brain stimulation.

But as the left brain deteriorates, we must adjust.  Maybe we forget the more obscure rules in the game of Bridge.  Maybe we forget important dates.  We have to keep written lists because our left brain becomes less reliable.

Returning to the idea of “The Complete Picture,” we see that research on the human brain is, for the most part, restricted to reporting on individual outcomes.  We have documentation of an individual suffering brain damage, and research that tracks the individual’s recovery.  We know that people recover from a hemispherectomy, and that physical limitations result.

What is less understood is the behavior shift that occurs from brain trauma.  How does the brain compensate for damage?  Does the “Master and his Emissary” model go out the window?  Surprisingly, a government agency may have the answer for us.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an agency of the United States government that is responsible for biomedical research.  In 2009 it sponsored the Human Connectome Project (HCP) with a five-year task of developing a network map of the human brain.

That effort led to a demonstration of brain activity featuring unique differences between male and female participants.  The study, with the unwieldy name of “Sex Differences in the Structural Connectome of the Human Brain,” was presented to the National Academy of Sciences in 2012.  It shows activity between the left and right hemispheres being higher for female participants in certain tasks.  Male participants showed less cross-hemispheric activity.

With mapping capability demonstrated for gender differences, it should be straightforward to analyze differences based on authoritarian behaviors.  The idea that the left brain dominates authoritarian action can be tested!

The way is now clear to move beyond case studies of individual behavior.  We can continue to study those individuals who struggle with internal dominant/deferring behaviors, but can also move to studying behaviors between individuals.  A husband and wife engaged in interpersonal negotiations can be mapped as they engage in dominant/deferring behaviors.

Groups can be studied.  We can contrast the differences between those groups involved in gang-related activities and those in routine social interaction.  We can begin to understand group dynamics in a way that is vastly superior to the analysis of polling data.

Beyond small groups, we have the phenomenon of complete societies behaving in a certain fashion.  Why do human beings tolerate despotism?  Why do we become attracted to situations that are destructive to us?

Depending on whether we are dominated by our left or right hemisphere, we get completely different outlooks on life.  And at the center of these behaviors is whether or not we have self doubt.

Self doubt is the province of the right brain.  The left brain is self-centered and rigid in its understanding of the world.  There is a sense of “self” which the left brain does not question.  Its representation of the world is “reality,” and outside of this representation is a world dispatched as “The Other.”

The right brain has to act as a judge of the representations of the left brain, comparing what it sees on its own with what the left brain has catalogued as “reality.”  If there is sufficient evidence that the left brain’s representation is faulty, the right brain can make the left brain adapt to the “new reality.”

This give-and-take is what we consider as normal behavior.  As human beings, we have strong beliefs and feelings based on our life experience, and modify those beliefs only when confronted with strong evidence to the contrary.  This is why our dominant/deferring brain activity changes with age.  When we are young, the left brain is developing its “reality” and must adapt as new situations are presented by the right brain.  When we are older, the right brain expects the left brain to use its experience to keep us going.  The right brain goes on hiatus.

But back to the issue of self doubt: Authoritarians lack it.  It’s as if the right brain completely defers to the left brain.

Consider the case of people following a cult leader to their own self-destruction.  An authoritarian leader might convince cult followers of the imminent destruction of the world.  Only when the cataclysm fails to materialize does the left brain have to adjust.  In the case of an event like the 1978 Jonestown Massacre in Guyana, death interrupts the opportunity for the brain to reconcile.  Authoritarian behaviors can have deadly consequences.

It is therefore important to understand why human beings are attracted to authoritarian leaders.  Certainly there can be a fear factor, where intimidation is used to coerce the follower.  But this is not always the case.  Often a person will be drawn to an authoritarian figure without coercion.

Understanding the brain as a construct of two hemispheres can help us see that people will follow an authoritarian leader simply because the authoritarian becomes a proxy for the right brain.  Following the leader is the less complicated path to take.  We don’t have to engage in the work of analysis and interpretation; we simply sit back and let the authoritarian take charge.

It appears that authoritarians relish this phenomenon.  Having other human beings relinquish their personal power can be quite seductive.  Furthermore, when authoritarians see that power exercised by other authoritarians, it becomes an object of admiration.  We sometimes see “the authoritarian salute,” an automatic, reflexive behavior where one authoritarian leader uses a deep bow from the waist to show respect for another.

In 2014, Russia under Vladimir Putin annexed the country of Crimea.  The United Nations voted on a non-binding resolution that decried the annexation.  Of the 193-nation General Assembly, 11 nations voted against the resolution.  They were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.  A strong case could be made for the existence of authoritarian leadership in each of these countries.

Interestingly, we don’t find this of academic concern.  While we see authoritarians in various stages of power, from the autocratic ruler of a nation to the school bully, we still don’t find this worthy of study.

And yet, obvious questions abound.  Who are these authoritarians?  How do we identify them?

Is Reese Witherspoon an authoritarian?  In the early morning hours of April 13, 2013, she was arrested for disorderly conduct in connection with a field sobriety test administered on her husband, Hollywood agent Jim Toth.  She attempted to intimidate the arresting officer, asking him “Do you know my name sir?” and “You’re about to find out who I am.”

What about the case of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.?  On July 16, 2009, Professor Gates was arrested by Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley.  Sgt. Crowley had responded to a possible break-in at Professor Gates’ home.

Professor Gates had forced his way into his own home after finding the door jammed.  A neighbor saw this action and notified police that a robbery was in progress.  Sgt. Crowley responded, and asked Professor Gates to step outside.

The professor became perturbed and accused Sgt. Crowley of racism.  The Sergeant’s report indicated that Professor Gates felt he was being arrested “because I’m a black man in America.”

Both Ms. Witherspoon and Professor Gates exhibit authoritarian behaviors in these two instances.  They act with impunity and believe they are not wrong.  But should they be classified as authoritarians, or is their authoritarian side simply dominant at the moment?

We easily assign an authoritarian classification when the power of the authoritarian is unchecked.  In the Twentieth Century, we have the examples of Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler (among others).  Tremendous human suffering results when authoritarians act with impunity and destroy the lives of those individuals under their control. 

But what about instances where the authoritarian behavior is less obvious?  We often witness these behaviors in private, and don’t find anything remarkable unless they are reported as infractions of institutional rules.

Maybe it is bullying at a public school or some type of criminal behavior.  It doesn’t become newsworthy until the authoritarian is limited by the power of a higher authority.

With limited academic study and no metrics for analysis, our experience with authoritarians is mostly anecdotal.  We are missing “The Big Picture.”


In October, 2001, Fareed Zakaria wrote a cover story for Newsweek magazine with the provocative title, “Why They Hate Us.”  It was an analysis of the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11, and Mr. Zakaria ended the article with a call for the United States to help Islam “enter modernity in dignity and peace.”

Mr. Zakaria reports the Muslim world is beset with economic hardship and that Muslim fundamentalism is a reality.  However, while pointing out the problems, he does not offer a corrective path.  That is evidently an exercise left to the reader.

Why bring this up?  There is actually a tie-in with authoritarians.  It can be explained through a Venn diagram:

                                                   The Political-Religious Movement

The diagram shows how religious and political beliefs can be “co-opted” by people with authoritarian tendencies.  While political activities and religious beliefs are distinct and separate areas of human action, a special intensity of feeling comes when they are combined.

Political beliefs help us form a functioning society.  A particular outlook for collective action or individual accountability helps us structure the rules that govern our group behaviors.  Our political beliefs set the rules for constructive human interaction.

Religious beliefs help guide our individual behaviors.  We use religious instruction to guide our personal lives.

Because religious beliefs focus on individual behavior, they have an intensity that is not present in political beliefs.  We often find that we are less tolerant of opposing religious views than we are of opposing political views.

What authoritarians seek is the merging of the political and the religious spheres of influence.  That intersection creates an intensity of feeling that becomes the essence of any Political-Religious Movement.  The Venn diagram shown above indicates that a Political-Religious Movement is defined by this intersection.

While a Political-Religious Movement can occur anywhere, it is important to note that the United States of America has built-in defenses against this type of interaction.  Our Founders incorporated the constitutional principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the rule of law.  These deter the type of power that authoritarians seek.

While not impossible, it is difficult for one person or one political party to acquire authoritarian power in the American political system.  It is much easier in those parts of the world where American constitutional powers do not hold sway.  An authoritarian has a much easier go of it in third-world countries where commitments to the separation of church and state do not exist, and the separation and distribution of political power is not a defining principle.

To see a Political-Religious Movement in action, we might look to the Middle East and the country of Iran.  Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, demonstrates the central techniques used for consolidation of power.  First among them is to foster a philosophical duality.  That duality is a co-dependence on idealism and hatred.

If that concept seems foreign, note how the study of the Quran is used for the inculcation of “high ideals.”  If a follower exhibits a commitment to the Quran, that person automatically has high ideals.  If that idealism is then coupled with an object of hate, a level of fervent intensity is brought to the Political-Religious Movement.  Within the Islamic State of Iran, hatred is directed at Christians and Jews.

The pairing of idealism with hatred is characteristic and defining in any Political-Religious Movement.  Germany under Adolf Hitler had the ideal of a master race coupled with the hatred of Jews.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has its nationalism and idealistic devotion to Kim Jong-un merged with a hatred for Americans.

But what about the Middle East?  Americans may be confused with Islam divided between Sunni and Shia denominations that fight against one another.  It only makes sense when you understand that “the idealism” is one side of a Political-Religious Movement while “the hatred” is a separate component.  Within Islam, these two separate political-religious factions fight for supremacy.  While the religious component may be the same, the object of hatred is what defines them as two separate movements.

Another interesting issue within Political-Religious Movements is concern with the display of hypocrisy.  People wonder about leaders who “don’t practice what they preach.”  It is newsworthy when fundamentalist religious leaders engage in decidedly immoral activities, or ardent political leaders engage in activities that are in complete opposition to the practices they advocate.  (Recent examples involve Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries and Leland Yee of the California state legislature.)

The significant point in each case is not the personal flaws exhibited by each individual.  It is that we mistakenly assume authoritarians are drawn to an organization because of a belief system.

That is clearly not the case.  Authoritarians do not seek out Communism, Socialism, or religious fundamentalism because of idealistic attraction.  They seek out the philosophy because of the opportunity to engage in authoritarian practices.

It is not a dedication to collectivism, or religious zeal, or whatever ideal the organization promotes, but the fact that the organization requires authoritarian leadership.  The authoritarian finds an opportunity to “never be wrong” and to “act with impunity,” and that’s what the authoritarian seeks.  The relevant ideology is simply a prop.

A final point to note is that Authoritarianism is never self-limiting.  It demands more and more accommodation and affirmation, and is limited only by the power of higher authority or the death of the authoritarian.

For good or for ill, this is what defines the human experience.


Here’s something to consider: Authoritarianism is male-dominated.

While we may see authoritarian behaviors from women in our workplace or in social settings, we do not see women at the top of authoritarian regimes.  It never happens.  There may be female power “behind the throne,” but the front man is always that: a person of the male gender.

But might this be changing?  There are strong expectations in America that in 2016 a woman will rise to the highest levels of our government.  Many in the Democratic Party want to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States.

While it may not be apparent that this involves an opportunity for Authoritarianism, the associated factors are too strong to ignore.

Is there a Political-Religious Movement in place?  Not completely, but the Democratic Party is moving in that direction.  The political component of the movement is the Democratic Party itself, and it has a strong philosophical stance.

That philosophy can be seen in the idealistic intentions of its followers.  Members of the Democratic Party want to stop war, end violence and eliminate inequality.  They want to curtail climate change, end discrimination and eliminate hunger.  If an individual has an idealistic intent (perhaps with a Utopian slant) the Democratic Party is very welcoming.

However, rather than having a defined orthodoxy, the Democratic Party simply validates good intentions.  It is a political party that is “always trying to do the right thing.”

Note that I am describing the party from a humanist standpoint.  This has nothing to do with historical perspective or policy.  It is simply the way human beings view a Political-Religious Movement.

While the political component promotes the high ideals of the followers, what about the religious component?  The Democratic Party has traditional support from Jews and Catholics, but there is no institutional sect associated with it.

As a substitute, the Democratic Party welcomes any belief system, from Atheism to Secularism.  The guiding principle is the power and authority of the Democratic Party itself.  The primacy of the Democratic Party is what transforms it into a religion of its own being.  Everything becomes “political.”  The separate spheres of politics and religion coalesce.

The transformation of the Democratic Party into a Political-Religious Movement is an evolving process.  Because it is happening as a current event, we do not fully appreciate its significance.

We see its cultural impact, where many, but not all, are caught up.  But since each and every American is a part of that culture, we have difficulty “stepping back” and objectively analyzing the transformation.

That’s where it becomes important to look at the Object of Hate.  Followers of the Democratic Party have high ideals, and derive a sense of moral authority from that feeling.  But that is not what distinguishes them.  The feature that stands out is the hatred directed at Republicans.

The Democratic Party spends a great deal of effort characterizing Republicans as bad people.  The Party teaches Americans that Republicans are racist, homophobic bigots.  The Party sees Republicans as trying to destroy the environment, turn the economy into a catastrophe, shred the Constitution, harm our children and steal from our Seniors.  Republicans are liars and cannot be trusted.  Republicans must be destroyed.

That last sentence may be figurative, but it describes the intensity of anti-Republican feeling that is fostered by the Democratic Party.  That intensity is particularly evident in the Democratic Party Base.

You might be surprised to find that the Democratic Party Base sees a perfect world as a place where there are no Republicans.  They internalize that artful remark, “The Only Good Republican is a Dead Republican.”

The implication is ominous (at least for Republicans) but the feelings are based in idealism: If there were no Republicans, the resulting unity of thought would be a thing of beauty.

I realize that setting forth this construct in a few paragraphs seems extreme.  It helps to examine it within historical context.  Other Political-Religious Movements have employed the same mix of idealism and hatred to energize their movements.  We’ve seen it in Germany’s National Socialist Movement and most recently in the Ukraine and Nigeria. The philosophical duality of idealism paired with hatred is commonplace.

One aspect of the Democratic Party’s evolution into a Political-Religious Movement worth noting is its sophistication in the use of themes.  I mentioned the characterization of Republicans as bad people, but the manner in which the Democratic Party accomplishes this task is significant.  The Party teaches Americans that Republicans may not exhibit the racism or homophobia of which they are accused, but they have sinister intent.  Republicans want to hurt these people.  Republicans want to do bad things.

While Americans may not see actual instances of the suggested Republican behavior, they know what Republicans want to do.  That is an attitudinal aspect that simply cannot be underestimated.  It has great power to energize human feelings.

Again, I must emphasize that we are watching the evolution of a Political-Religious Movement here in America.  It is a work in progress, and is unfolding before us.  It provides a unique opportunity for study.

A musical group acts out the disembowelment of Sarah Palin.  Mitt Romney is characterized as being callous toward women dying from cancer.  Should we be concerned about the legitimacy of these cultural portrayals?  Are there bounds for decency?  What determines the limitations?

This is American politics, and it is fertile ground for authoritarians.  We have a ringside seat as the opportunities are exploited.

Whether Hillary Clinton is the person to rise to the top of the Democratic Party Movement remains to be seen.  If she does, we will be witnessing the ascension of a person of the female gender to a position of authoritarian domination in the United States of America.

That will be a “first.”


Authoritarians are a fact of life.  Human beings have brains with two hemispheres, and the left hemisphere strives to become dominant.  It causes us to exhibit authoritarian tendencies and sometimes extreme behaviors.

What to do about it?  The first step is recognition.

Authoritarians are not subtle.  Their quest to “never be wrong” and to “act with impunity” is a dead giveaway.  We should be able to recognize these behaviors in the school bully or in the spoiled child.  Corrective action can be applied at an early age.

But there is one other aspect of authoritarian behavior that should be addressed: Human beings are attracted to authoritarian individuals and organizations.  We want to be a part of the action.

Maybe it makes us “cool” or is fun and exciting, but we want to join the authoritarians.  It is not a particularly noble facet of human behavior, but it is who we are.

This implies that a major cultural issue is the socialization associated with authoritarians.  Why are we attracted to individuals who teach us to hate?

Is it possible that the “enemy” is us?  Do human beings have a cultural bias in favor of authoritarians?  Is it something to do with the left hemisphere of our brains?

I think that if we find we are being taught to hate, we should be on high alert.  If we are drawn to an individual or organization because of the targeting of other people, we should be concerned.  Let’s step back and evaluate what is happening.

Please note that there is a difference in the “type of hate.”  Contrast Christianity with Islam.  In one religion, the object of hatred is abstract.  Christians are taught to hate the Devil and the dark forces that provide temptation.

In the other religion, the object of hatred is other human beings.  That’s a significant difference.

Human beings haven’t changed much over the centuries.  We should learn from human behaviors and adapt our actions.

Let’s make the 21st century a good time to be less accommodating toward authoritarians.