@glitterbag,
John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" relies heavily on the work of
Bob Altemeyer and his research on authoritarianism. Dean isn't a great writer but the information is really valuable (and you can probably find a copy for a dollar and shipping). For a quick look at this, see Wikipedia on
right wing authoritarianism A particularly valuable notion I got from the book was this:
Quote:Researchers have traditionally assumed that there was just one kind of authoritarian personality, who could be either a follower or a leader. The discovery that followers and leaders are usually different types of authoritarians is based on research done by Sam McFarland.[4]
This is a rather big conversation and obviously our right wing folks will not be likely to find such notions compelling but there are two broad phenomena which validate the thesis for me.
First, the nature and operations of the right wing media universe are, as David Frum has put it, to isolate some significant portion of the citizenry in an "information" bubble which axiomatically rejects information coming from outside that bubble. That is a key authoritarian control mechanism
and it clearly appeals to an audience more comfortable with uniformity and simplicity (usually with punitive tones).
The second is (stay with me here) humor. As I've pointed out elsewhere, our cherished humorists are almost all liberal of mind. Exceptions are extremely difficult to find and this severe imbalance tells us something profound (how could it not?) and needs explaining.
Humor does a lot of work. It makes us feel better. It dissipates anxiety. It allows us to see things in new and less serious ways. It pushes the boundaries of what's deemed acceptable. It nimbly questions notions of sacred and profane. It presents life dilemmas as something we all share and in that, it promotes notions/recognitions of inclusion and shared humanity. I could go on but I'll stop there. Twain, Groucho, Woody, Keillor, Will Rogers, Seinfeld, Dave Barry, Matt Groening, etc etc. It is no coincidence at all that authoritarian leaders resent humor and satire where they are the target perhaps as much as any other sort of commentary about them. And that is because it diminishes their desire to have others see them as uncriticizable, as unique, as semi-sacred, as above the level of others.
And for the follower types who find comfort in authoritarian systems, the devices and goals of the humorist threaten rigidly held notions of how members of the community ought to think and behave.
Obviously what I'm talking about here doesn't have a 1 to 1 correspondence regarding who votes one way or another, or who labels themselves as liberal or conservative. But the broad outlines of what I'm pointing to are very easy to identify and verify.