Or, how does a Trotskyite become a neoconservative?

Periodically over the past several weeks I've summarized some of my thoughts on Bob Altemeyer's work on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). One question that I have received in my classes and in correspondence is in regard to left-wing authoritarianism (LWA). The usual suspects get mentioned, such as Stalinists and Maoists who come across as hyper-authoritarian in their own right. I recall myself reading through some Communist party literature back in the mid-to-late 1980s that struck me as very similar to Pat Buchanan, just with Marxist rhetoric instead of the usual fundamentalist Christian rhetoric. I've wondered from time to time how presumably devout Trotskyites can morph into the right-wing extremist neoconservatives that today influence the highest echelons of the US government. I've mentioned also here before that I've had my own run-ins with Stalinist individuals in progressive and anti-racist university organizations as an undergrad. So there is an interesting (and empirical) question: do right-wingers truly have a monopoly on authoritarianism. The answer, if one accepts the work of Bob Altemeyer, is "not quite."

In the 1990s, Altemeyer attempted to develop a scale to measure LWA, based on fairly similar dimensions as his RWA scale. Recall that the RWA scale was defined by three dimensions: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. The definition of LWA is also based on three dimensions, but with a twist: authoritarian submission to those dedicated to overthrowing the establishment, authoritarian aggression against perceived established authorities, as long as it's advocated by revolutionary authorities; and conventionalism in terms of strongly adhering to the norms of behavior endorsed by revolutionary authorities. In other words, high LWAs differ from high RWAs only in the sense that they subscribe to different authorities. If a leader of a revolutionary organization's cell makes a command, a high LWA will in theory be prone to obey that order. If the revolutionary leaders advocate vandalism or bombings of targeted buildings, a high LWA will be more prone, in theory, to follow through with such actions. If the revolutionary leaders wear combat fatigues, black armbands, and berets, you can be rest assured that a high LWA would do likewise -- again, in theory.

So, we have the theory. How does the theory pan out in reality? Not that well, although something interesting happens. Altemeyer discovered that nobody in his sample scored above the moderate point on the LWA scale. However, in the process of comparing it and scores on the RWA scale, Altemeyer found four combinations of individuals:

1. Non-authoritarians: these are people who score low on both the RWA and LWA scales. They seem to follow the old hippie slogan of "do your own thing, just don't hurt anyone." Personal note: I probably fall in this category.

2. Left-wingers: these are people who score relatively higher on the LWA scale than others, and who score low on the RWA scale, although none of these individuals come anywhere close to advocating overthrow of the establishment. These individuals may be seen as reformers, as liberals, social democrats, and the like. They might even show up at an anti-war demonstration or two, but they're not going to be overthrowing any established government anytime too soon.

3. Right-wingers: these are people who score high on the RWA scale and low on the LWA scale. These are the standard right-wing authoritarians, who support the established order and have no interest in overthrowing that order.

4. Wild-card authoritarians. These cats are the most interesting. The tend to be relatively high scorers on the LWA scale and also score high on the RWA scale. These are people who seem to believe in submission, aggression, and conventionalism per se, would probably ordinarily support the established order, but would be hip to overthrowing that established order if they perceived it to be corrupt or evil.

So where do the militant Stalinists and Maoists fit in? How about the militant Islamists or the militia groups? I would be willing to wager that many of these individuals would be wild-card authoritarians. Once the established order is overthrown and they themselves become the establishment, they will behave just like typical RWAs. I think we could look at the history of the former USSR or the Chinese Communists as excellent examples of what happens when wild-card authoritarians gain control of a nation and establish their own order. Lenin, Stalin and Mao might be good candidates for wild-card authoritarians. Think too of how orthodox Stalinists act once out of power. In the former Soviet Union, for example, the remnants of the Communist Party either joined newly formed nationalist parties or remained nominally communists but became allies with the nationalists. Same with so-called socialists in contemporary Serbia who are really more or less right-wing nationalists.

The neocons in the US? Possibly they too are good candidates for wild-card authoritarians -- at least those whose personal history started out as true believers of Trotskyite orthodoxy.

Implicit in my discussion above is the notion that the old left-right political spectrum is over-simplistic. Yes, there are people who can be readily identified as left-wingers and right-wingers, but there are some noticeable deviations that don't fit neatly in that spectrum. The non-authoritarians aren't really "leftists" although many may consider themselves Greens, or anarchists. Other non-authoritarians identify themselves as Libertarians, and seem to espouse a fairly pure form of lassez-faire capitalism. But what holds all of these non-authoritarians together is a general willingness to live and let live, a tendency to not interfer in others' choices, and so forth. The wild-card authoritarians too are hard to fit into the old spectrum. Some of them do belong to what we might think of as standard RWA social, religious and party affiliations but could change their tune if the established order appears to fail them. Other wild-card authoritarians are involved with revolutionary movements and may engage in what we think of as "left-wing" rhetoric but will change their tune once they assume the mantle of "the establishment."

Some food for thought.