I can't consider your post the opening shot in a rumble, because it's so obvious that you know nothing of Dean's book or the topic of authoritarian conservatism. It's a shame, because the thesis has been advanced by a Conservative for Conservatives, and Dean explains it in terms meant to be understood by Conservatives. There's something there for you, if you can, for once, get off your political highhorse.

If you actually knew anything about "Conservatives without Conscience", you'd know that Dean recounts the history of the study of authoritarian conservatism that began after World War II, in an attempt to understand the psychology that made ordinary Germans into Nazis. This isn't something somebody made up just for this campaign season. The study of authoritarian conservatism is the legitimate study of a mass social phenomenon in which people repress their own will and conscience and follow the dictates of Authority instead. It matters a lot, as the most cursory study of history would tell you.

You missed a great chance to examine AC when you went on for several paragraphs about Bush being a "shipper", advocating beliefs from the outside. It didn't take all that improv about his background, it only requires looking at the internal logic of authoritarian conservativism: People who want to submit to Authority have to find somebody who is not an authoritarian conservative to lead them, because by definition they're followers. Anyone who aspires to lead authoritarian conservatives cannot, by definition, be one of them.

Which makes authoritarian conservative leaders con men, perpretrating a fraud on their followers. They're hypocrites, advocating a philosophy that they don't believe in.

It's a red herring to try to identify authoritarian conservative individuals. It's a fundamental mindset below surface belief, but profoundly affecting surface beliefs. It has explanatory power to the extent that its effects can be seen across the board.

The "treason!" phenomenon is a vivid manifestation of authoritarian conservatism. It upsets an AC deeply to see Authority questioned, both at the level of abstract beliefs about right and wrong, and at the visceral level where it shakes the comforting faith in Authority. People who shriek "treason!" do so because, deep down, they're afraid.

Authoritarian conservatism, as an attitude more than a belief system, is strongly influenced by circumstances and external events. It's long been understood that people feel the pull of authoritarian conservatism more strongly in bad times; and sure enough, authoritarian conservatism has exploded since 9/11. Republicans aren't shy about acknowledging how they've benefited from the insecurity, and haven't been shy about exacerbating it for their own gain. They understand how to infect people with authoritarian conservatism; and as noted, it's not because they believe in it themselves, but because they gain from other people believing in it.

And that's why I'd expect, if there's a shred of intellectual honesty remaining on the Right, you'd want to know about authoritarian conservatism, because it's being used against you. You're being manipulated by "shippers" who have no intention of joining you in your submission to authority, but want to scare you into submitting to their Authority.

Don't you want to understand how you're being played?

That's the topic I want to discuss. I have no interest in labelling individuals authoritarian conservatives, or anything else. This is about intellectual inquiry and the possibility of understanding better how the world works. It's an extension of primatology and sociology and anthropology, and politics only to the extent that politics arises from human nature. Understand human nature and you understand politics.