Conservatives Without Conscience (2024)

John Dean - image from Politico

This is a must read for those with an interest in contemporary political affairs. Dean, an erstwhile Goldwater Republican, is interested in authoritarianism within the conservative movement. He begins by looking for a definition of conservatism. This is no mean feat, as the definition is as variable as the people who supposedly ascribe to this ideology. In the preface, for example, (p xxxvii) he quotes Robert Vaughn, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, who defines democracy and authoritarianism in terms of information policy. “Authoritarian governments are identified by ready government access to information about the activities of its citizens and by extensive limitations on the ability of citizens to obtain information about the government. In contrast, democratic governments are marked by significant restrictions on the ability of government to acquire information about its citizens and by ready access by citizens to information about the activities of government.

Dean looks at the research of several folks in the field and brings their work to this wider forum. What makes an authoritarian person. He looks at leaders and followers, their characteristics, their beliefs. He looks at the history of authoritarian conservatism in the USA, beginning with Alexander Hamilton. He looks at some examples in detail, J. Edgar Hoover, Spiro Agnew, Phyllis Schlafley, Paul Weyrich, Pat Robertson.

Update 2016 - the review may be a thin, early, 2008 effort, but the quotes from this book are all important.

Update 2020 - If anything, this book has gained in stature after the experience of the last four years. Forget the publication date. Check this one out.

P 12
[Conservatives looking to American history for a historical tradition to their beliefs faced a considerable challenge:] given the liberal tradition of this country, and in fact, nothing in America’s founding, or the creation of the United States, was of a conservative nature.

P 13
One [conservative:] scholar suggested conservatives should claim that, in fact, the Declaration’s egalitarian ethos had not been carried over to the Constitution; rather that the Declaration was just that, a declaration and not a governing document…it was ultimately decided to “stress the compatibility” of both the Declaration and the Constitution with conservative views, although that compatibility was created by brazenly reinterpreting the founding events and documents. Accordingly, for conservatives the clause “all men are created equal” would be construed to apply merely to equality under the law and not to “some misty ‘pursuit of happiness’ [as:] the true foundation of our polity” and certainly not to the brand of egalitarianism favored by liberals. Most conservatives, in fact, oppose equality, and there is ultimately no clearer underlying distinction between conservatives and liberals that their views on this issue….in a variety of ways, conservatives sought to drain the Declaration of its explosive [liberal:] rhetorical potential.

P 49
[quoting researcher Bob Altemeyer, re authoritarianism. He developed a scale called the RWA or right-wing authoritarian scale to measure the tendency:]
When I started out, and ever since, I was not looking for political conservatives. I was looking for people who overtly submit to the established authorities in their lives, who could be of nay political/economic./religious stripe. So in the Soviet union, whose Communist government we would call extremely “left-wing,” I expected right-wing authoritarians to support Communism because that was what the established authorities demanded, and they did. So when I use “right-wing” in right-wing authoritarianism, I do not mean the submission necessarily goes to a politically “right-wing” leader or government, but that it goes to established authorities in one’s life. I am proposing a psychological (not political) meaning of right-wing, in the sense that the submission goes to the psychologically accepted “proper,” “legitimate” authority.

Now it turns out that in North America persons who score highly on my measure of authoritarianism test tend to favor right-wing political parties and have a “conservative” economic policies and religious sentiments…Authoritarianism was conceptualized to involve submission to established authorities, who could be anyone. But it turns out that people who have “conservative” leanings tend to be more authoritarian than anyone else.”

Altemeyer learned that there are two kinds of authoritarian personalities, followers and leaders. He found identifying qualities for each:

P 53 [followers:]
Submissive to Authority – By “submissive,” Altemeyer means these people accept almost without question the statements and actions of established authorities, and they comply with such instructions without further ado. “authorities” include parents (throughout childhood), religious officials, government officials (police, judges, legislators, heads of government) military superiors and, depending on the situation, other people like bus drivers, lifeguards, employers, psychology experimenters and countless others. High-scoring right-wing authoritarians are intolerant of criticism of their authorities because they believe the authority is unassailably correct. Rather than feeling vulnerable in the presence of powerful authorities, they feel safer…but their submission is shaped by whether a particular authority is compatible with their views.

Aggressive Support of Authority is a “predisposition to cause harm to” others when such behavior is believed to be sanctioned by authority. Authoritarians are inclined to control the behavior of others, particularly children and criminals, through punishment. They have little tolerance for leniency by courts in “coddling” criminals. Targets of right-wing authoritarian aggression are typically people perceived as being unconventional, like hom*osexuals. Research finds that authoritarian aggression is fueled by fear and encouraged by remarkable self-righteousness, which frees aggressive impulses.

Conventionality – they tend to be fundamentalist…religion influences their attitudes – believe themselves the country’s true patriots – travel in tight circle of like-minded people – thinking is based on what authorities have told them rather than on their own judgments – harbor numerous double-standards and hypocrisies – hostile toward minorities, while unaware of their prejudices – see the world as a dangerous place – appoint themselves guardians of public morality – think of themselves as more upstanding and moral than others.

P 56
Social Dominance Orientation and “Double Highs”: the Leaders
These are people who seize every opportunity to lead, and who enjoy having power over others. Felicia Prato and Jim Sidanius developed social dominance theory and a social dominance orientation scale. Double-Highs are people who scores high on lLtemeyer’s test and on the SDO.

P 68 – characteristics of social dominators
Oppose equality – desire personal power – amoral – intimidating or bullying – faintly hedonistic – vengelful – pitiless – exploitive – manipulative – dishonest – cheats to win – highly prejudiced – mean-spirited – militant – nationalistic – tells others what they want to hear – takes advantage of “suckers” - specializes in creating false images to sell self – may or may not be religious – usually politically and economically conservative/Republican

P 110 –
A partisan judiciary does not deliver justice, and conservative Republicans are again acting as authoritarians in packing the federal courts.

P 180
Are we on the road to fascism? Clearly we are not on that road yet. But it would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there.
[Are we there yet?]

P 183
What has driven this book is the realization that our government has become largely authoritarian. It is run by an array or authoritarian personalities, leaders who display all those traits I have listed—dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating, and bullying; some are hedonistic, most are vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheaters, prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, and two-faced. Because of our system of government, these dominators are still confronted with any number of obstacles, fortunately. Yet authoritarians seek to remove those complications wherever they can. They are able to do so because the growth of contemporary conservatism has generated countless millions of authoritarian followers, people who will not question such actions.

All right how many of you feel a strong sense of dread, reading Dean's decade-old work in 2016 or later? Raise your hands. Ok, boys, collect all those with hands up. They are obviously Islamic terrorists, or Mexican immigrant criminals. The transport wagons are waiting.

I spent two years researching the answer to the question, “Why has political discussion become so contentious, rude, and non-consensus making over the past three decades?” I came a long way towards answering that question, but not all the way. John Dean is a traditional conservative, a Goldwater conservative, and indeed he and Barry Goldwater would have written this book together if Goldwater had not died. Dean takes everything I figured out and takes it further, placing what I knew in a larger context. He gets to the heart of the matter by combining historical facts with psychological/statistical insights. The logic of the conclusions can not be denied. The right has condemned the book, of course, because that is what they do rather than engage with the facts and ideas presented here. When you wash away the B. S. of the invested right, this is an insightful look at the way the left and the right speak (OK, SHOUT) to each other, why it has become so, and why it is so difficult to correct. I do not recommend any book more highly.

Psychological research is typically dismissed for its lack of causal relationships between two variables. Unlike hard sciences, psychologists cannot put a cause and effect label on an individual's behavior like Newton did with the apple.

However, make no mistake, there is an importance to psychological research, and that importance is underscored in this book by John Dean.

Dean uses the work of political/social psychologist Bob Altemeyer and others in the field to outline the four tenets of behavioral study: 1) describe; 2) explain; 3) predict; and 4) influence.

Dean believes the Bush administration has run the United States with an autocratic hand. Conservatism has become a dangerous movement led by what Altemeyer describes as authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers. Modern conservatism is a movement that has morphed into a black-and-white world of beliefs about human nature. Dean uses the objective data of Altemeyer to stress that the personalities, which unlike moods do not change very easily, have led to this administration's indifference to principles of liberty and eqaulity set forth in the Constitution.

This description of authoritarianism explains why individuals like Bush, Cheney, Abramoff, Pat Robertson and Tom DeLay push their moral and intellecutal superiority onto the world and expect everyone to step in line. They rarely admit mistakes because that would show supposed weakness in their minds. And since they are conservatives, the answers to any problem have already been established.

Many buy into this thinking, according to Dean, because the tendency of most in society is to follow someone lock step who gives the impression of having all the answers. This is why the Republican Congress and 25 percent of the electorate would follow George Bush no matter what, according to Dean. They are simply weak-minded and fearful of losing their position in society. Fear-mongering is how authoritarians govern.

Finally, Dean's purpose is to influence those moderates and conservatives with a conscience to rise up against the Bush regime and take back our government. Whether he was successful may depend on the 2006 midterm elections.

Of course, this is a political work and its very thesis carries with it an outright dismissal from those who reject the author based on his history in the public eye. Ironically, Dean understands this because he knows the tendencies of those in power and those who blindly follow those in the executive branch.

But Dean's work should not be dimissed. It is an accessible and very readable account of how personality influences politics. This book is partisan, sure, but it is intellectual and rational, unlike recent book's like FUBAR from Sam Sedar or Godless by Ann Coulter.

The bottom line is that personalities create political power. Dean's point is that democracies lose when the autocrats run the show.

John Dean was at a loss to understand what had happened to the Republican party since the Nixon days. Today's Republican party is not like the Republican party he first joined. He wanted to understand.This book is the result of his research. He found the answer in new research into the Conservative authoritarian personality. 25% of the the US population is made up of Conservative Authoritarian Followers. They are 1)submissive, 2)agressive 3)believe in inequality and 4)are self-righteous. They are led by Conservative Authoritarian leaders who are: 1)dominant, 2)agressive, 3)believe in inequality, and 4) are amoral. He applies this knowledge to current political leaders and issues.

This is a very good book. The first chapter is a bit tough to get through, but perservere. The rest of the book is worth it.

This book not only does what it is billed to do (apply psychological studies to political disposition) but also provides a basis for understanding today's conservativism.

After discussing the ideas of what it means to be a conservative, Dean tackles situation of conservatives who do not have a deep tradition in America. The US was begun with a Declaration declaring all men equal (liberal), which was made to stick with a revolution in which conservatives were the loyalists and monarchists. Then there was a constitution with a Bill of Rights. Those with authoritarian psychological profiles are disposed to prefer order over rights and do not always see other races or religions their own. These authoritarian types gravitate to conservative politics and have come to dominate the Republican Party.

I found Dean's differentiation of the various conservative think tanks (Cato, AEI, Heritage Fdtn, etc.) helpful. The portraits of conservatives, particularly the ones whom Dean had met (especially Pat Robertson) were interesting. In the J. Edgar Hoover portrait, I was intrigued by the comment that he "rigged" the Warren Commission. Does this imply that Hoover knew who killed JFK? Not having read the autobiography, I'm rather amazed at the things Dean quotes from it.

A lot about electoral politics is explained by Dean's discussion on the attributes of the authoritarian personality which correlates with a conservative outlook. A psychological need for concrete answers is ready made for conservative campaigns in the TV era. Also, expedience correlating with authoritarianism (and hence, conservatism) predicts a much easier a path to power for conservatives than liberals. It's easy to see how opportunists who only seek power (and not contribute to the good of the country) will immediately see that they should play to a conservative base.

There is a lot of meat in this very short book.

I picked this thing up in NW Wisconsin at the Hayward Public Library and read it with enjoyment in a day.

Although a quick read, this is not a great book. Rather, it appears that Dean got his hands on some psychological surveys about various personality types as regards political beliefs and behavior. Studying this material he claims to have obtained some insight into what he perceives as a shift in the Republican Party from the conservatism of Taft and Goldwater towards the virtually antithetical beliefs held by the Republican leadership during the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries, in other words from Nixon through Bush. To simplify, the Party has moved from libertarianism towards authoritarianism, becoming virtually fascistic.

As I have little love for the leadership of either major party, a great deal of antipathy towards fascism and a generally libertarian, albeit socialistic, ethos, Dean's book is hard for me to be objective about. It sounds almost too good to be true these notions that the Republican leadership has been taken over by sociopaths and that their base is made up of revenants of the old party, who should leave it, and sheepish psychotics.

A better book would have started with a critical examination of the psychosocial studies upon which Dean's claims are based. It would proceed to apply these studies to political figures and their followings irrespective of party affiliation. If an argument could be made characterizing either party, or factions of either party, in these terms, then so be it. As it is, Dean satisfies my emotions but fails to convince my intellect.

This book was so enlightening and frightening. If you care about America, we have found the enemy:
it's us. Specifically, it's the Republican Party (the Regressive Party) that's been taken over by narrow-minded, self-delusional, fear-mongering authoritarians and their frightened followers who lack the critical thinking and blindly accept everything they're told, even if it's contrary to their own interests (universal healthcare, for instance).

Dean does a great job of talking about how the history of the GOP and how it has changed in the last two decades and how amoral creeps and hypocrites like Cheney, Gingrich, and DeLay rose to the top.

If you've ever wondered how the right wing took over U.S. politics and damaged it beyond all recognition... If you've pondered what really went on during the Nixon administration... Don't fail to read this book. The first couple of chapters are a bit challenging to read, but the rest is amazing. All the secrets of the Nixon administration pour out, and connect to the subsequent take-over by the GOP. The same cast of characters were present in subsequent decades, and exactly as corrupt as ever. It'd make a good novel of fiction. Don't they always say that truth is stranger than fiction?

I'm always looking for books, articles, or anything that explains not just *what* is going on with our current political climate (specifically, the religious right) but also WHY. This book, written by a more classic/old school conservative who feels betrayed by the directions the fundamentalist Christians are taking the Republican party he once held so near and dear, is a pretty amazing book. For one, the author is an insider, so he doesn't *want* to be talking all this sh*t about Republicans, but he feels like he has to, so it is interesting on that level. His main point is that there are two specific authoritarian personality types, one type for authoritarian followers and one type for authoritarian leaders, who are characterized by specific types of lack of morals/conscience, and how this has changed the Republican party over time until they are now basically a bunch of hypocrites with no conscience. He finds especially dangerous/amoral those Republicans who are both of the two authoritarian personality types (one such example being Dick Cheney). And, even more interesting, he finds that these personality types do not occur in such high rates - in fact hardly occur at all - among progressives/liberals. I recommend this highly, despite the fact that I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't agree with the author on plenty of things he didn't write this book about.

This is a most interesting and helpful book, especially if you are a liberal Democrat. It would be much harder for conservative Republicans to read and appreciate.

Like so many books, this one, too, would have been of greater value had I read it sooner to its publication. On the other hand, it might have been too depressing to have read it when Bush/Chaney were still in office.

Dean (b. 1938), who was White House legal counsel to President Nixon for a thousand days, is sharp in his criticism of Nixon, but even sharper in criticism of Bush/Chaney. Near the end of the book Dean writes, "Nixon, for all his faults, had more of a conscience than Bush and Chaney" (p. 183).

The book is largely about authoritarianism, and Dean says the driving force behind his writing this book was "the realization that our government has become largely authoritarian" (p. 183).

A little earlier, he says, "I am not sure which is more frightening: another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack. Both are alarming prospects" (p. 180).

Even though the book is more than five years old now, it is still very much worth reading and considering seriously.

Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean is yet another in a recent string of books (see INvasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy by Bruce Bartlett for other example) written by old-school conservatives (i.e. Goldwater conservatives) lamenting the current state of the conservative movement in America today. While Bartlett focused on the fake conservatism of the Bush II administration and Gold compared modern conservatism with that of the Goldwater and Reagan periods, Dean focuses on the psychology of conservatives and how today's conservative movement has fallen victim to authoritarian tendencies. Clearly, he argues, the same sort of unquestioning acquiesence to authority and power we saw in WW2 Germany and Italy is on display today on the political right, and we should be wary of the movement's growing power and influence.

Gut reaction after reading? 4 stars.

Though I empathize and agree with what is written, think I need more time to fully digest what I've read here....

Dean defines what a Goldwater Conservative is and the value and legitimacy Conservatism has by contrasting today’s conservatives, those with and without conscience. He chronicles the major influences to, and changes in, the Republican party from Nixon though Bush (2008) that have resulted in the hollowing out of the Republican party of both intellectual legitimacy and the capacity to govern reasonably. Further, he references and explains recent research in authoritarianism psychology and group dynamics explaining the mechanisms through which these changes may have come about. In all, Dean shows us a troubling view of how the Republican party has been usurped by Conservatives Without Conscience and how this has led to a dangerous level of uncivility and inability to govern. This is a must read for anyone who wants to understand why there is the current vitriol and what it is really doing to our politics, our government and ultimately our country.

A must read for understanding some of the underlying reasons behind the bitter partisan divide in our country today. The title was inspired by a Senator Barry Goldwater work, Conservatives With Conscience, and intended to be a companion piece that Dean worked on with Goldwater. I mention this because I was put off by the title at first, thinking it guilty of the partisan name calling that often passes these days for serious political discourse. This book was extremely well documented, amazingly so, and as terribly cliche as the phrase eye-opening is, it is fitting. I lost count of the number of times I had to set the book down for a moment to process what I read and then wonder why I had not seen discussion of his points in the media. I first read this book a few years ago and find myself coming back to it as an aid in understanding the forces at work in current politics

Former White House Counsel to Richard Nixon, John Dean provides a disturbing account of how the American conservative movement has come to be dominated by sociopaths referred to by clinical psychologists as “double high authoritarians,” who control others by playing on their fears. They also hold all others to very high standards of behavior and responsibility, while they themselves often act unethically and amorally.

This is a stunning book, not your usual political analysis.

John Dean has based his work on a famous psychological study, The Authoritarian Personality, conducted in the US post WWII. He has worked closely with a noted psychologist to gain an understanding of this personality type, both leaders and followers, and has applied this understanding to the current political scene in America.

It is deep, frightening, and thought provoking. A must-read.

Definitely worth reading. It's a little repetitive and at times tedious, but it is very informative and IS spot on in it's critique of what conservatism has evolved into.

Not long ago, I read “Blind Ambition” by John Dean. It is his autobiographical exposé of Watergate and the fall of President Nixon. Of course, an autobiography tends to see the world a bit skewed in a self-interested way. However, I felt Dean did a pretty good job and I rated the book four-stars.

The prologue of this books tells how Gordon Liddy and some other high-level conservatives attacked Dean and his wife in the early 1990s by claiming she was working with a DC Madame providing prostitutes to politicians, apparently in an attempt to get revenge against the Deans for the part he played in bringing down President Nixon. Ultimately, the attack was proven to be unfounded, but it took years. Dean came out of it understandably upset. Apparently, he wanted a little revenge of his own – hence “Conservatives Without Conscience.”

I intentionally gave this book zero stars, not as an oversite, but because it is the worst book I can recall ever reading. This is not because I disagree with his conclusions – in fact, I agree with many of them. I disagreed with Al Gore’s “The Future,” but I gave it two stars, because it did have some value to it. I gave “Drift” by Rachel Maddow two stars though I disagree with practically everything she says. I read a lot of books I don’t agree with, but this is the first no-star for me. Dean gets no stars because he tosses all semblance of truth aside, cherry picks data, and arrives at the most outrageous, grossly overstated, illogical conclusions I have seen put on paper – even conclusions I agree with, I had to take a second look at after following Dean’s path to them. I feel I can see the pain he must have gone through from Liddy’s attack on nearly every page, but that doesn’t excuse this mess. However, if you are a liberal and want to hate conservatives, this will give you plenty to fortify hatred. But, you got to kind of take it as is without giving much thought to the basics.

I took almost no notes because the things he was saying were worthless on their face. The notes I did take were to remind me why I was so disappointed in this book after “Blind Ambition.”

About 80% of Dean’s book comes from studies by Bob Altemeyer. Altemeyer spent decades studying personality types, in particular authoritarian people. He created a definition of what an authoritarian person was, how they came into being, and how to recognize them. They are very evil, immoral, dishonest people who want to enslave the world. He claims this work is not based in any way upon political concerns, but ironically, it turns out that all authoritarian people are Republicans. Well, there could be Democratic authoritarians, it’s just that Altemeyer “never found one.” So, the central name of this psychological malady is Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA). There are subcategories of this evil; Double High Authoritarians (DHA) are the Republican Leaders. Social Dominators (SD) are also all Republicans. Throughout the book, Dean gives examples of what these evil RWA, DHA, SDs do. And as I look at political history, I see Democrat good boys doing similar things, but somehow Altemeyer and Dean missed them. Note: this book does not talk about Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, etc. It focused on Republicans. And it turns out that beginning with Reagan, Republican Leadership has become dominated by RWA. These monsters have no conscience – hence the title of the book. Then there is another branch of RWAs. These who are the followers. They have been trained by religion to think of leaders as God’s representatives, so they mindlessly follow the RWA Republican leaders no matter how wrong or illogical they are shown to be. Of course, by inference, there are no people on the left that follow others without deep consideration and evaluation.

Dean makes incredible statements like, Republicans have rigged the system to ensure they will always be elected, and Democrats know it, but won’t complain because they “don’t want to be seen as whiners.” Dean goes into a long discourse on how Tom Delany gerrymandered Texas as if this were a new idea Delany came up with, and the implication is that Democrats would never gerrymander because they are not afflicted with RWA. After reading this part, one wonders at the age of the term, gerrymander, in English.

Dean makes a big deal of an Al Gore speech where Gore castigates Bush/Cheney for using fear to get people to submit to their evil programs. According to Dean, fear is a basic tool RWAs use to get their way. In all this, Dean seems to be completely oblivious to the way Gore used fear of Global Warming as a tool to build a massive personal fortune for himself. But, obviously, Gore couldn’t have used fear of dying polar bears and rising sea levels bringing the end of the world as we know it, because he is a Progressive and therefore immune to fear mongering, something only Republican RWAs engage in – that is one way to spot them.

Every few pages Dean drops into a middle school name calling jag, example; “... authoritarian personalities, leaders who display all of those traits I have listed – dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating, and bullying; some are hedonistic, most are vengeful, pitiless, exploitative, manipulative, dishonest, cheaters, prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, and two-faced.” It would be interesting to list through the entire book to see if he missed a single negative adjective in the English language.

By the time I got through this, I was really wondering how Altemeyer could come up his conclusions. I did some research and all I found was that he is a well-respected professor and researcher. So, I had to look into his research. I found a sample of tests used to discover who is RWA. The person is given statements and asked if they agree or disagree with each statement. These were just the statements with no information upon how the answers are evaluated. I will put down some and you can ask yourself if they actually separate authoritarian people from the normal people or if they are more addressed at separating conservative from liberal.

The established authorities generally turn out to do right about things, while the radicals and protesters are usually just “loudmouths: showing off their ignorance.

Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

It is always better to trust the judgement of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society, who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds.

The country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.

It is wonderful that young people today have greater freedom to protest against things thy don’t like and to make their own “rules” to govern their behavior.

Enough. I could come up with my own set of questions and massage my analysis to make only liberals authoritarian. What is obvious to me is that career politicians, left and right, are generally corrupt and mostly concerned about preserving their careers (getting reelected) in authoritarian ways.

Started: 2018.07.29 - finished: 2018.08.07

I have long through that supporting the Republican or Democratic parties in the USA is, basically, a personality test indicating whether one is resistant to change or embraces change. This is as basic and and analogous to have a party for introverts and one for extroverts. What confuses me is why the dichotomy is so all-encompassing to participation in the political process by the electorate. Democracies from Western Europe to India are noisy, boisterous affairs of multiple parties and coalition, a practical expression of the society's diversity.

This 2006 book, not suffering from a recurring focus on the Bush-Cheney years and policies, comes from John Dean, who served as White House Counsel under U.S. President Richard Nixon and then helped to break the Watergate scandal with his testimony before the United States Senate. The book analyzes the evolution of the Republican Party, fallout from Watergate, and the different forms of conservatism, largely in terms of authoritarian personality. It was published in 2006 by Viking Press. The book makes extensive use of the research into right-wing authoritarianism of University of Manitoba Professor Bob Altemeyer. The title is a play on The Conscience of a Conservative, a seminal book attributed to Barry Goldwater and ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr. Dean claims that he and Goldwater had planned to write such a book in the 1980s in response to their disaffection with the religious right. The Altemeyer taxonomy of such personality types as "Social Dominator" and "Double High Authoritarian" in a gamut of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation supports and clarifies for me a vision of this personality-driven ideology. The book, as good as it is, does nothing for me to understand why America endures such polarization. Not that Dean really drove at that. He does speak of re-balancing trends in the Republican party, such as the rise of the Goldwater Republicans after the persecution policies of McCarthyism. Then, of course we have a move to moderation with Reagan et al post-Watergate. Dean can speak first hand on both revivals of a more practical American conservatism. Dean, from 2006, doesn't offer any hope or signs of a similar thaw and I am not optimistic base don the Trump and Carson prominence in the pre-Primary election season as I read and write. However, I do feel some sanity and self-analysis showing through, hopefully, in Boehner's resignation rather than continue fruitless opposition politics and Paul Ryan requiring support for a cooperation platform to accept the Speaker role. “We need to move from an opposition party to being a proposition party,” he said.

Why do those in the religious right act the way they do, are they motivated by religion or conservatism? Is this what happens when Christians become politically active or is this just one type of person drawn to conservatives.

Jesus was not a conservative. It is almost oxymoronic to say politically conservative Christian

Conservativism has been hijacked by authoritarians.

This book focuses mostly on the Republican party starting in the 90's. Dean is not a fan of what his Conservative party has become. He does not talk fondly of many Republicans and points out how they have been pushing a more authoritarian agenda and how that he believes that is not good for our country.

Dean shows how the more christian the republican party becomes the more push they have for what they believe is the moral right and less about the comprimise and give and take of what is required to run a country. Dean is not saying to give everything to those crazy liberals. He says that true conservatives weigh options and look for change when proven their idea is incorrect and then move to a new option slowly.

Dean talks a lot of the Bush / Cheney Whitehouse years and how they used fear to hold power over Americans. Talks of the phone taps and invasion of privacy that happened in the name of national security.

Another point on fear that Dean makes is how since 9/11 Republicans use fear of anyone to help them stay in power. Is it the Muslims we should be afraid of, the blacks, or now the bad hombres that we have to be worried about.

This book was filled with Dean's observations but offered little of what he thought could help the situation.

I bought this book through Half.com last year as research material for a novel I wrote about a ten-year-old boy from a Republican family who follows the 2012 presidential election. Throughout the year, I'd read a handful of books about Republicans in order to understand why they believe the things they believe and why they think the way they think. This book by John Dean was very helpful in understanding the authoritarian mindset and authoritarian follower perspective. Written in 2004, this book captures the positions and mindset I had observed last year during the Republican Primary debates. The positions expressed by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Ron Paul seemed so extreme and grounded in fear. This book explains why the Republican party is no longer as mainstream nor as competitive as it once was. I particularly appreciated the work of Bob Altemeyer referenced in this book. The writing was clear and pointed with lots of barbs directed at the disastrous Bush/Cheney Administration. Well done, Mr. Dean!

CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE was written by another famous Republican and conservative, in the 1960s meaning of the term. Mr. Dean worked with President Nixon until that president's unconstitutional actions brought his own disgrace and the temporary downfall of the Republican Party. Check out Mr. Dean's book Worse Than Watergate which is an excellent indictment of the Bush junta. The latest book clearly explains what a real conservative and especially a truly compassionate conservative should be and historically speaking actually was for the most part until the modern political era, which took root in the 1960s-1970s and took power in the 1980s-1990s. He describes the psychology of today's radical Republicans who are anything but conservative. Mr. Dean argues that the actions of the current Republican Party and their misguided followers are dangerously authoritarian in nature and are marching this country ever closer to a state of fundamentalist fascism.

Really well written. I didn't want to read at first because, you know, Nixon, but then I thought, know thine enemy. But it turns out he was not as much among the cabal of evil after all. And his scathing indictment of the current "conservatives" (quotes because that word hardly describes it, more like batsh*t crazy, or zealots, or tyrants, fascists, authoritarian theocracy true believers. But to be fair, the book was written before the madness of the current crop of republican presidential candidates and the completely willful ignorant crop of representatives at all levels of government, especially in the state legislatures.

Liked what he said and the charts about inclinations of peoples' beliefs to land them in liberal or conservative and authoritarian and so on were good, maybe as an appendix.

A riveting read exploring what right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is in psychological research and how it stands in opposition to traditional conservative values. Dean draws a line between what he sees conservatism was before 1968 to what it has become during and, especially, after the Nixon presidency. A lapsed conservative and a frequent MSNBC contributor himself, Dean eviscerates what he sees is the sheep mentality of a large portion of the conservative base, a facet, as he notes wryly, used by the Christian right and other modern right-wing political opportunists. The book is as much a historical analysis as it is a exploration in psychology that draws on the area's latest research.

Every young Republican should read this before they even think about voting.

This is a well written book that I feel all should read, no matter your political leanings. It allowed for self-reflection, as well as insight to those around me. While it was written over 12 years ago, it provides insight to our current political climate.

The title of the book is a reference to Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," and in fact Dean had initially planned to write this book together with Goldwater, but the senator's failing health and eventual death prevented it.
Partly a clinical, psychological study and partly a catalog of the many sins of J. Edgar Hoover, G. Gordon Liddy, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Bill Frist and of course Dick Cheney. There's also some account of the intellectual history of conservatism, a number of thinkers' definitions of conservatism, and a longish and frankly jaw-dropping personal account of how Liddy and some conspiracy theorists attempted to pin the Watergate break-in on Dean twenty years later in a libelous book called "Silent Coup."
Dean talks about personality types in terms of "social dominators," "right-wing authoritarian followers" and then the ominous "double highs" who combine characteristics of both of those other types. Dean considers everyone I listed above to be a double-high, although he goes marginally easier on Bill Frist than on the others.
There's some truth to the criticisms that Dean is going a little far, for how can you "diagnose" people psychologically/sociologically if you're not treating them over some length of time? You could see this book as a collection of hit pieces on Republicans that Dean doesn't like (but whose conduct, I'd say, is objectively reprehensible), but I think that to do that is to ignore the truth of the larger theses a) that Republicans have become less moderate and much less civil since 1994 and b) that "American conservativism" has been redefined and popularized by this bunch as something almost antithetical to what it originally was: a philosophy of limited government characterized by the desire for transparency, strict constitutionalism, and overwhelming skepticism toward the prospect of an imperial executive (see FDR).
I think you can (and very well might) agree to disagree about the psychological profiling and still be very, very concerned about the future of libertarian conservatism in the Republican party, and the future of the Republican party itself, after Bush.

Reading this book just after reading "The Sociopath Next Door", was a coincidence, but the fact that similar personality types arose in each book and some of the same psychological studies were used to support these personalities types (like the work of Stanley Milgram)left me with a realization, that "The Grand Old Party" has been hijacked by the types of people that are amoral, destructive, and authoritative. I have learned that authoritative people blindly follow authority and authoritative dominants lead, especially double highs....the problem with this scenario is they often lead for their own gain ( power, money or ideology), with no consideration for their constituents (or really anyone). Dean goes back decades showing how the republican authoritative personality types are repeatedly elected and followed, that they always seems to burn out, leaving scorched earth in their wake, McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon, Delay, Gingrich and Cheney to name but a few. This book helped me understand the abhorrent state of right winged politics today.

Unfamiliar words:

xxiii titular: holding a formal title or position without any real authority
pg. 106 eschatogical: a branch of theology concerned with the end of days
pg. 107 compendium: a collection of concise information
pg. 151 hagiography: derogatory writing about another person

I was 15 when the Watergate hearings began. My family watched them during dinner. I still recall the family discussion. The image of young John Dean testifying while his "dutiful" wife sat behind him is still vivid in my mind. Even then without much knowledge or interest in politics I was captivated by Dean's testimony in coming clean. Seven years later I found myself in Washington as an intern to then freshman Senator Orin Hatch. When I had free time from my duties I would randomly wander Capitol Hill and watch hearings or floor debate. I still recall Barry Goldwater in his twilight years sitting in the Senate chamber, usually devoid of senators, except those who were addressing a bill, "presiding".

So with those memories I picked up the John Dean book, Conservatives Without Conscience. Although now over a decade since it was release Dean's warnings seem even more relevant in the age of Trump. There is no question in recent years our society has witnessed the rise of a right-wing authoritarian political movement hiding behind a self-described “conservative” label while engaging in vicious, confrontational and hypocritical tactics in all areas of political activity. According to Dean this unholy alliance between nationalist movement, the Republican Party and religious right extremists has created a grave threat to our democratic freedoms.

The book starts with settling a score between and his former co-conspirator G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy after being released from prison published his book Will. Liddy claimed that Dean was the mastermind of the Watergate burglaries and the purpose was to seize information implicating Dean and his wife Maureen in a prostitution ring. Dean and Maureen sued Liddy for defamation. Liddy later pulled the book and paid a private settlement to Dean.

The author charges “the Grand Old Party to which I belonged has moved so far to the right, that on the contemporary political spectrum, I now often fall to the left of the Republican center.” Dean explains that this book originally began years ago as a collaborative project with the late conservative Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater during the last years of his life. Goldwater had become greatly concerned over the growing influence of religious right extremism in the Republican Party, and he gave this book its title.

Dean quotes Goldwater saying: “Those people (the religious right) frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. The government won’t work without it. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know. I’ve tried to deal with them.”

Much of the book is devoted to a description of social science and psychological research that has been conducted on the American political right over the past four decades. Dean especially cites the work of American Robert Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba in Canada. He notes that a large number of studies have documented a high correlation between authoritarianism and conservatism, and they have also defined the two types of authoritarian personalities, namely leaders and followers.

Most importantly, research shows that right-wing authoritarian leaders score high on measures of “Social Dominance Orientation.” Empirical data demonstrates that they are “relatively power-hungry, domineering, mean, Machiavellian and amoral, and hold conservative economical and political outlooks.” Their followers are blindly submissive to authority, which can lead them to do harm to others if they believe such behavior is sanctioned. In addition, the followers also “accept the traditional norms of society and tend to be fundamentalist in religion and reject moral relativism.”

Persons who score high on both scales of authoritarian followers and leaders are described as “particularly scary,” and they “inevitably see the world with themselves in charge.” The writer describes Vice President Cheney as a “double-high” on the measurement scales. Cheney believes in “unimpaired authority,” and Dean charges that he has been “the catalyst, architect and chief proponent of Bush’s authoritarianism.” Writing this review in the age of Trump it is uncanny how accurate the descriptions are of today's political environment.

Dean writes that neoconservatives and Republicans in the Bush administration believed they were “more likely to maintain their influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke potential terrorists throughout the world.”

Dean accused the Bush administration of exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 “as an excuse to indulge their natural authoritarian and conservative instincts.” Cheney, Dean explains argues that the Bush Administration used the politics of fear as “their most troubling of authoritarian radical tactics.” The Bush administration is not being serious, he says, “about addressing the possibility of another major terror attack in the United States.”

Finally, a key element in the rise of authoritarianism has been the merger of Christian religious fundamentalists with the right-wing politics of the Republican Party. Dean cites the warning from former President Jimmy Carter, who said, “Narrowly defined theological beliefs have been adopted as the rigid agenda of a political party.”

The mere fact that Dean and other traditional conservatives such as the late Sen. Goldwater would now find themselves to the left of center in the present Republican Party speaks volumes to the degree to which that party has shifted. Dean concludes, “I am not sure which is more frightening: another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack. Both are alarming prospects.”

Aside from the political analysis I found the book both interesting from the historical perspective and insightful.

Favorite Quotes:

“Social conservatism and neoconservatism have revived authoritarian conservatism, and not for the better of conservatism or American democracy. True conservatism is cautious and prudent. Authoritarianism is rash and radical. American democracy has benefited from true conservatism, but authoritarianism offers potentially serious trouble for any democracy.”

“American-style despotism is possible only if it has a large and influential base, and that potential exists in the religious right’s active role in the political arena.”

“Research finds that authoritarian aggression is fueled by fear and encouraged by remarkable self-righteousness, which frees aggressive impulses.”

“They travel in tight circles of like minded people. Their thinking is more likely based on what authorities have told them rather than on their own critical judgment, which results in their beliefs being filled with inconsistencies. They harbor numerous double standards and hypocrisies. They are hostile toward so many minorities they seem to be equal-opportunity bigots, yet they are generally unaware of their prejudices. They see the world as a dangerous place, with society teetering on the brink of self-destruction from evil and violence, and when their fear conflates with their self-righteousness, they appoint themselves guardians of public morality, or God’s Designated Hitters. They think of themselves as far more moral and upstanding than others—a self-deception aided by their religiosity (many are “born again”) and their ability to “evaporate guilt” (such as by going to confession).”

This book and its observations are central to discussions of our politics currently, and will be a footnote in retrospectives about this decade of our history.

John Dean, legal counsel to President Richard Milhous Nixon at the time of Watergate, identifies himself with the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, and assesses the drift of today's conservatism towards authoritarianism from the fall of Nixon through the presidency of George W. Bush.

In this book, he makes extensive reference to intriguing psychological studies of authoritarian personalities, both followers and leaders, and identifies "double highs" (personalities combining the traits of the authoritarian follower and the social dominator).

It is an immensely readable commentary on the Bush/Cheney era and the threat it poses to our republic.