LOL!
It's interesting to note that at the start of FDR's Presidency in 1932, there was a widespread assumption that FDR would assume dictatorial powers to address the crisis of the Depression, and widespread approval of the notion. In hard times people are prone to welcome a strong authority figure taking charge. But FDR rejected the seductively easy path of dictatorship, and took the more difficult path of working within the Constitution (albeit pushing Congress and the Supreme Court to the limit), and saved both the country and America.
FDR for all intents and purposed did assume dictatorial positions. And almost half the nation despised him for it. The other half were too dumb and too poor to care so long as they had more than before. You need to read current literature on how his presidency was viewed, other than the kiss-up jobs and candy-coated bios written during the post-war period after he was dead.
Go buy yourself some Scribner's Commentator mags from the mid to late thirties (or find a university that has them on microfiche) and get the real "deal" on FDR's presidency and just how often he broke all existing laws. It's all documented and it's an eye opener to say the very least.
Authoritarian Democrats? FDR was the most authoritarian, 'daddy figure' President of all. Look to your own party for the reasons authoritarianism succeeds. You may also want to spend some serious time thinking about the relationship between the poor and uneducated and their prevalence of being ruled by dictators.
The uneducated rally behind anyone who promises them the most. Dictators have no problem making promises. And the poor have no problems voting for 'big daddy dictator'.
You guys on the left are ready to make a talking head vegetable like Olbermann President - cause he says what you want to hear and has been made to send you the daddy/authoritarian cues.
Robert you're reading Dean's book the wrong way. Just replace the word 'conservative' wherever it appears with 'liberal' and the book may actually benefit you.