Mon Apr 16, 2012, 11:35 AM
lutefisk (3,415 posts)
John Dean's analysis of Walker- not a pretty picture
Worth taking a look at, if you haven't already seen it. Paul Fanlund discusses it in today's Cap Times:
Here's Dean's original piece:
(1) Domination. Authoritarian leaders seek to control others; in short, they are social dominators. This is the story of Scott Walker’s life. By age 7, Walker had formed a “Jesus USA” club, which was a mix of his father’s Baptist ministry and his attraction to patriotism. By age 8, he had undertaken a door-to-door fundraising campaign to take charge of purchasing a flag for the village hall of his small Iowa town. As a teen, Walker sought leadership posts, which provide some control, in Boys State and Boys Nation, and became an Eagle Scout. He attended Marquette University (but has no college degree from there or any other school). At Marquette, he was elected to the student senate, and twice sought but failed to get elected president of the student body. He ran for the Wisconsin State Assembly the same year that he lost his bid to be student president at Marquette, losing the Assembly race as well...
...Walker’s amorality is conspicuous. It is found in his history of ethics violations and the record of his lying. A lengthy article could (and should) be written about both, but suffice it here to note that his ethics problems go back to his Marquette University days, when the college newspaper called him “unfit” for student office...
...Hopefully, one or more social scientists or political psychologists in Wisconsin, where there are many, will step forward and tell the people of Wisconsin more about what they have on their hands, with Scott Walker as their governor. In fact, the June 5, 2012 election is a true opportunity to discourage another leader who is a conservative without conscience, for these leaders always have a healthy following. Altemeyer estimates that about twenty-five percent of the population has, in varying degrees, the disposition to follow a double high authoritarian, many blindly or simply because it assuages their fears. And, of course, these are aggressive followers who can attract others who are unaware of the nature of the person they are electing, thus enabling an authoritarian leader like Walker to gain ever-growing control.
5 replies, 1605 views
John Dean's analysis of Walker- not a pretty picture (Original post)
Response to Scuba (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:28 PM
lutefisk (3,415 posts)
2. But I really appreciate Dean's restraint
And it is surprising that there has not been more substantive stuff written about our possibly criminally insane governor.
Walker truly appears to enjoy seeing people frightened and scared.
Looking back at the phony Koch phone call, Walker took pleasure in what he perceived to be fear in the Democratic Senators. He had power to threaten and intimidate them:
"...most of the rest of them are just looking for a way to get out of this. They’re scared out of their mind, they don’t know what it means. There’s a bunch of recalls up against them. They’d really like to just get back here and get it over with.'''
And of course, he sees himself as a major historical figure, with the best to come:
...I told my cabinet, I had a dinner the Sunday, or excuse me, the Monday right after the 6th. Came home from the Super Bowl where the Packers won, and that Monday night I had all of my cabinet over to the residence for dinner. Talked about what we were gonna do, how we were gonna do it. We’d already kinda built plans up, but it was kind of the last hurrah before we dropped the bomb. And I stood up and I pulled out a picture of Ronald Reagan, and I said, you know, this may seem a little melodramatic, but 30 years ago, Ronald Reagan, whose 100th birthday we just celebrated the day before, had one of the most defining moments of his political career, not just his presidency, when he fired the air-traffic controllers. And, uh, I said, to me that moment was more important than just for labor relations or even the federal budget, that was the first crack in the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism because from that point forward, the Soviets and the Communists knew that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a pushover. And, uh, I said this may not have as broad of world implications, but in Wisconsin’s history — little did I know how big it would be nationally — in Wisconsin’s history, I said this is our moment, this is our time to change the course of history. And this is why it’s so important that they were all there. I had a cabinet meeting this morning and I reminded them of that and I said for those of you who thought I was being melodramatic you now know it was purely putting it in the right context.
Response to lutefisk (Original post)
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:57 PM
snagglepuss (9,803 posts)
3. Excellent reads. That amorality is partof Dean's def of authoriartianism
Last edited Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)
really jumped out at me.
I have to wonder whether that explains the overt religiosity of these types, religion enabling them to hide their amorality event from even themselves so as to make them better manipulators.
Response to snagglepuss (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 16, 2012, 02:16 PM
lutefisk (3,415 posts)
4. There always seems to be a strong belief system that makes everything okay...
If they have to think, empathize, or face change, they'd have a meltdown. Bush, Cheney, Walker, Delay, McCarthy and many other bad characters from the 20th Century.
I just don't know if they actually believe it (delusional) or they are just complete con artists. I think con artists.