Bruni ties all of this into our current political culture, noting one significant factor driving this authoritarian behavior: that trusting authority is easier and more convenient than treating it with skepticism. He writes:

As Craig Zobel, the writer and director of ‘Compliance,’ said to me on the phone on Friday, ‘We can’t be on guard all the time. In order to have a pleasant life, you have to be able to trust that people are who they say they are. And if you questioned everything you heard, you’d never get anything done.’ It’s infinitely more efficient to follow a chosen leader and walk in lock step with a chosen tribe.

He suggests that this is the dynamic that drives unthinking partisan allegiance (“What’s most distinctive about the current presidential election and our political culture [is] … how unconditionally so many partisans back their side’s every edict, plaint and stratagem”), as well as numerous key political frauds, from Saddam’s WMDs to Obama’s fake birth certificate to Romney’s failure to pay taxes for 10 years. People eagerly accept such evidence-free claims “because the alternative mean[s] confronting outright mendacity from otherwise respected authorities, trading the calm of certainty for the disquiet of doubt”

Here’s a conclusion that Democrats won’t want to hear:

One of my first posts when I began writing about politics back in 2006 was an examination of the blindly loyal, cult-like veneration which the American Right had erected around George Bush; as Paul Krugman was one of the first to observe, that same disturbing thirst for leader-worship then drove followers of Barack Obama (Krugman in February, 2008: “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration – remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again”).

And traditional “patriots” won’t want to hear this:

Second, it is very easy to get people to see oppression and tyranny in faraway places, but very difficult to get them to see it in their own lives (“How dare you compare my country to Tyranny X; we’re free and they aren’t”). In part that is explained by the way in which desire shapes perception. One naturally wants to believe that oppression is only something that happens elsewhere because one then feels good about one’s own situation (“I’m free, unlike those poor people in those other places”). Thinking that way also relieves one of the obligation to act: one who believes they are free of oppression will feel no pressure to take a difficult or risky stand against it.

I agree with you that “loving” American can mean a wide variety of things, and thus the phrase is quite vague. The fact that a word is vague, though, doesn’t prevent it from being emotionally charged and effective for social bonding. I can guarantee you that if I made overtures to God and Country before discussing social issues with conservatives, my conversations would be more fruitful. Your point reminds me of my earlier post of the vague phrase “Support the Troops.” http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/05/28/what-does-it-really-mean-to-%E2%80%9Csupport-the-troops%E2%80%9D/

When someone tells you “I love America” ask them what they mean by “America.”

The American States? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American people? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American Government? (do you love all of it, or just some of it?)
The American insects? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American corporations? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American animals? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American politicians? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American policies? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American culture? (do you love all of it, or just some of it?)
The American Military actions? (do you love all of them, or just some of them?)
The American history? (do you love all of it, or just some of it?)

Etc, etc – you get the idea. In the end, no one really “loves America” or “hates America”. We need to get specific, and avoid all of these sweeping generalizations which are not only meaningless, but also ignorant and dangerous.

In his recent book, he describes “this strange and troubling creature called an authoritarian—usually conservative, usually a religious fundamentalist, and very closed minded.”

In this talk, Weiler describes “how people with this psychological profile are driving our political polarization, as well as the divide over factual reality in the U.S.”

He identifies authoritarians by use of a four question survey based on how children should be raised. Ideas about parenting seem to go to the heart of peoples’ understanding about hierarchical relationships.

Authoritarians tend to feel threatened by novel and challenging information; because of this feeling,authoritarians “retreat into a defensive posture.” They tend to disregard this type of information, causing authoritarians tend to be ill-informed. (15 min mark). They become rigid, unyielding and unwilling to compromise. (21 min). There are left-wing and atheist authoritarians too, not all are conservative (26 min).

Why so much authoritarianism now in politics? The Republican party found it to be a useful tactic for engaging with white middle-class frustrated voters. (24 min). Black and White framing of issues (“Drill Baby Drill”) is indicate the authoritarian approach. (25 min).

A solution appears to be to talk about issues with some nuance (32 min).

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_weiler_authoritarians_versus_reality/