Sure. What I got was shallow
Right in your first paragraph, man:
I lament the way scientific studies are created to fill a political movement's specific needs.
Dude, I've said it a couple of times already, but apparently I need to repeat endlessly until it sinks in: The study of authoritarian conservatism began shortly after World War II, to try and understand why the German people surrendered their will and consciences to the authority of Adolph Hitler. By no stretch of the imagination, except perhaps for your hyperxtended imagination, was it made up for this political season.
It's an eternal truth about human nature. Accept it and learn from it.
John Dean's Conservatives without Conscience is a play on the Goldwater book Conscience of a Conservative and is about tarring the current batch of republicans as authoritarian Nazis.
Yes indeed the name is a play on Goldwater's book. You also apparently missed that Goldwater was originally Dean's coauthor on this book, but died before they got it off the ground. Why, in your fevered imagination, do you think Goldwater would want to attack Conservatives with spurious charges?
And then you go off on that weird riff about the faces of authority figures. Gimme a break. What I and so many others appreciated about Olbermann's commentary was his words. You know, the content, the thought, the idea. That whole realm that seems invisible to you.
You're really confusing cause and effect. Authoritarian conservatism is the precursor mindset that enables authoritarianism. In Germany that led to the Nazis. In America it will lead to something else, something perhaps uniquely American, but still, something horribly inferior to the free society we have now.
The study of authoritarian conservatism doesn't lead to the conclusion that Conservatives=Nazis. It leads to the conclusion that authoritarian conservatism is a threat to a free society because it enables authoritarianism like Nazism. Like modern Republicanism.
As I scan down the page, I see you're trying to pretend that you've read the book and speaking with faux-authority, like talking about Dean exploiting Goldwater and Nixon, as if you have a clue. Yes or no, Techie: Have you or have you not read John Dean's "Conservatives without Conscience"? I think you're trying to fake it, and I'm calling you on it.
So many words, so little substance...quit trying to wing it (or Wing it), Techie, actually read a book, perhaps even Dean's, it'll rock your world.