They'll do anything to distract attention, now won't they?

JimC:

Obvioously, you haven't seen it from my perspective. I see the sublte subversion of our values in many things, in kids movies, kids books, public tv, in the public schools. They are forcing this view of what I consider sin, as education and tolerance of other people. This is what I object to.

We've seen it from your perspective dude. It was called Nazi Germany. They cleaned up the degenerates real good.

We, however, are Americans. So why don't you just pack up your family and go back to Nazi Germany where you belong?

Oh, right, it's not there anymore.

Well, then, may I suggest Iran? They're struggling there, too. But the government is 100% with you. They're all about purity. "Big time," as our #2 war criminal would say.

Mona:

@Paul Rosenberg re: JimC

They'll do anything to distract attention, now won't they?

Well, in fairness I started all this by pointing out that a trip to Jim C's blog was illuminating of his mindset, motives and level of analysis...

I told it like it was in my subject line. I hadn't read all the intervening posts because I was busy riffing on sysprog's historically illuminating post, adding some more recent history of my own, which actually had some reality-based bearing on the subject at hand. Then again, I had skipped over quite a few comments that seemed ever more divergent, simply in the interests of maintaining my sanity.

But whenever I hear someone start to go on about "purity" I have basically two different ways I can go. One is Dr. Strangelove. The other is Dr. Mengele.

But he is clearly a Xian Zionist, Bush supporter and all-around high Right-Wing Authoritarian. He is almost certainly among those for whom reasoned dialogue is futile and can only frustrate any attempting it, and it would detract from more productive conversation here.

Boy, howdy!

Like I said: Nazi Germany or Iran. Take your pick.

shooter,

Authoritarianism has a fairly specific meaning, particularly as operationalized by Robert Altemeyer with the Rightwing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, and by Felicia Pratto and James Sidanius on the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) ["the other authoritarianism"]. Because you're not familiar with the general findings--much less the specifics--you are falling into fairly commonplace mistakes. First, you equate authoritarianism with authority:

If not authoritarianism by the elected leader than what do you suggest to replace it? Once a decision is made by the group, how is it carried out if not with authority granted by the group?

The most obvious answer to your first question is that one replaces authoritarianism with the rule of law. The rule of law grants limited authority to our leaders, and requires that they act in lawful ways and remain accountable to the rest of us in a variety of different ways. The answer to the second is that, as stated above, authority and authoritarianism are two quite different things. Specifically, RWA is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters in an individual:

1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. "It is good to have a strong authoritarian leader."

2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. "It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules."

3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. "Traditional ways are best."

As you can see, this has nothing to do with getting things done by granting limited powers to a leader in order to carry out executive functions.

Aren't Dems trying to be the authoritarians?

It's not generally something you try to be. It's something you act like to a greater or lesser degree. And Altemeyer's research shows fairly conclusively that Democrats are moderately less authoritarian than Republicans as a whole, but that these differences grow significantly larger the more politically engaged the respective groups are. Sample groups of state legislators showed sharply distinct populations, despite a few scattered outliers here and there.

One can easily point to Dem affinity for totalitarian regimes such as Cuba and Venezuela,

Vague associations aren't good enough. Some Dems are very anti-Castro. Some Dems are very friendly to Cuba, but very critical of Castro's authoritarian rule.

Venezuela, OTOH, isn't anyhthing close to being an authoritarian regime. It's had more elections than under Chanvez than you could throw a stick at. It could move that way in the future--which is one reason that many Democrats criticize the Bush Administration's policies, which have supported very undemocratic anti-Chavez forces. Undemocratic forces have a way of breeding similar characteristics among their opponents.

while proclaiming that leaving Saddam in power would have beenbetter for the Iraqis.

All sorts of people have said this, including many Iraqis. By itself, the statement isn't an endorsement of authoritarian rule. It's a criticism of how badly Bush has botched the aftermath of the invasion. And, if you'll recall, Bush originally did not intend for Iraq to have any sort of democratic government. It was Iraqi resistence that forced Bush to change course, and pretend that "spreading democracy" had been one of his chief goals all along.

I think you [Mona] might want to reconsider slinging sloppy slurs that reflect badly on the speaker.

I think you might want to learn about the meaning of terms that have been well-defined and empirically studied for 35+ years in the case of RWA, and 15+ years in the case of SDO, before you go around calling other people's usage "sloppy."