I think that, if nothing else, this shows the rigid, authoritarian and altogether unhealthy psychology that dominates America’s core political left. It demands and receives absolute obedience from all its members. It doesn’t tolerate opposition within its ranks; opposition means expulsion. It cares not for the rule of law: even its own laws.

Once the left identifies a person–in this case, a politician–as one of its own, that person will receive a kind of blind, unquestioned affirmation, no matter what he or she says or does, as long as his or her words and behavior are within the authority’s current ideology (subject to the authority’s whimsical, often dramatic, changes). Their ideology includes anti-gun sentiments. They don’t know why. They don’t care why. But Fields is spouting off against guns, so she’s okay, regardless of what else she’s done or said.

This seems to be a circular phenomenon in that the more a person violates the law, the more his or her fellow leftists will lend support. Violating social norms and ordering principles that are perceived as “accepted” and “established” seems to more qualify one as a member.

It uses mass social and political organizations for strengthening and reinforcement. It shuns individualism–its supporters never break ranks–and the libertarianism you’d think “liberals” would embrace.

It’s an ironic phenomenon, full of irrational contradiction, in that authoritarian leaders believe in their absolute authority to do as they please, and in their “rebellious” supporters’ unquestioned obedience. The leaders often act in ways contrary to their supporters’ interests. The irony is that the more the authoritarian leaders act in ways contrary to their supporters’ interests, the more blindly and passionately the supporters obediently follow.

These are people, in other words, whose internal, pathological need to believe in their authority figures–and, subsequently, in their own authority–often supersedes the external ideals in which they say they believe. The say they want peace, yet they’re warlike. They say they want justice, yet they’re unjust. They say they want equality, yet they believe in and impose their self-granted superiority. They claim intellect, yet they embrace dumb, blind, ignorant loyalty. They oppose greed, yet they’re greedy: and so forth, and so on.

It’s important to draw distinctions between the authority figures and the principles for which they say they stand because the authority figures often violate the principles, yet their supporters continue to believe or are expelled.

In “The Road to Serfdom,” Friedrich Hayek says that in pre-WWII Germany, the “communist” and “fascist” movements were the most violently opposed to each other, but they both sought the same kind of mind which, says Hayek, was easily converted from one movement to the other: fascist to communist, or the reverse.

In “The Mass Psychology of Fascism,” Wilhelm Reich also drew correlations between the two supposedly opposed, radical political structures. For this–and as if to affirm its authoritarian structure–Germany’s communist party expelled Reich.

Here’s an interesting point. Reich had joined Austria’s “Social Democratic” (i.e. Nazi) party in 1928. In 1930 he switched to Germany’s Communist party, apparently finding little difference between the two; or apparently finding that he could get what he wanted from either one.

Here’s an even more interesting point. Reich preached that authoritarian psychology springs from sexual repression. But the American political left’s allegiance to sexual permissivism has itself become authoritarian: embrace it or be expelled. Have sex–any kind of sex–and have it often, and like it–or at least say you do–and claim that it is fulfilling and wonderful, or be expelled.

But the ultimate point is clear: social democratic, communist and fascist political organizations all seem based on the rigid authoritarian structure: blind, unquestioning obedience, intolerance toward any opposition, consciously deliberate disregard for laws and social norms perceived as established or accepted.

I think terminology is part of the problem. For example, we call these people–and they call themselves–”liberals,” but at least from a psychological perspective, they’re anything but liberal. They are, in fact, rigidly conservative. They’re not merely intolerant toward opposition. They don’t even acknowledge opposition. Their blind, unyielding obedience to their authority figures, and toward whatever their authority figures direct them, is absolute and beyond the pale of sane, rational human behavior.

Orwell demonstrated this in “Animal Farm.” When the pigs first led the other farm animals in rebellion against the humans, their slogan was “four legs good, two legs bad.” But once the pigs obtained authority, they learned to walk on just their hind legs (exactly like those they’d overthrown, which is typical of authoritarian “rebellions”). The pigs said the original slogan was actually a mistake. It was supposed to be “four legs good, two legs better.”

This is classic authoritarianism. The authorities require absolute obedience, even in the face of principle contradictions. They routinely break even their own most fervently-held laws, and their supporters must blindly believe.

Case in point: Obama has become (mostly via book sales) one of the rich people–a multi-millionaire–he’s characterized as “evil,” and he’s not exactly rushing to give away any substantial portion of his wealth. His kids go to exclusive private schools. He and his wife spend lavishly on themselves. As an attorney, he even represented slum lords in court and got poor people kicked out into the cold streets (in January, in Chicago).

Still, his supporters believe. They don’t even want to know. They prefer ignorance. Obama must always be right. They must always believe he’s right.

Anyway . . .. I see this as the authoritarian psychology dominating the political left. Its leaders, seeking absolute authority, violate the same laws of which they’d previously accused those against whom they claim to be “rebelling” of violating, and they come up with lame rationalizations, and they demand that their supporters believe, agree and accept. They use no small measure of propaganda, imposing rigid authority over their supporters and calling it “liberal.” They act against their supporters’ interests and still demand, and receive, absolute, unquestioned authority.

What can be done with people like this? They break and/or arbitrarily enforce even their own most fervently-held laws. They don’t even acknowledge, let alone tolerate, opposition. They blindly obey their leadership, which wields considerable media control. I think that a lot of the people who voted for Obama did so to see themselves as “rebels,” even though they and Obama are firmly entrenched in everything against which they purport to be “rebelling.”

It’s nonsense. It’s a bad joke. It’s nihilistic: destruction for destruction’s sake. It’s the standard operating procedure of those who elected the President of the United States.

Seems like I used to see bumper stickers saying, “Don’t Californicate Colorado”. We knew then (early ’70′s) this might happen…