Authoritarian leaders (Social Dominators)

[Know your enemy. The Leaders as score high on Altemeyer’s social dominance orientation (SDO) test in: dominance, economic conservatism, belief in inequality, amorality, meaness.  ]

See: Authoritarian followers Psychopaths  Authority  Double Highs

Authoritarian Personality Traits
Social dominator measuring scales by Bob Altemeyer

Newt Gingrich
Bill Frist
Tom DeLay

[2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer
[1950] The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford
Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean

There even seems to be a whiff of the sociopath about the social dominator. Somebody do the studies and see if any of these hunches is right. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

Frist is Richard Nixon with Bill Clinton’s brains, and Nixon was no mental slouch. Frist is without question a social dominator [authoritarian] … No one describes Bill Frist’s dominating personality better than Frist himself in his first book, Transplant: A Heart Surgeon’s Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine.” In his book, Bill wrote that he could “hardly help but be a demanding little tyrant. … I ruled not just over my family but over my friends – or should I say subjects – who always opted to come to my house.” Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean

“There are some things the general public does not need to know, and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows” The late Katharine Graham, owner of the Washington Post

Eighteen months after winning his seat in Congress, [Newt Gingrich] who campaigned on keeping his family united asked for a divorce. [His wife] Jackie, who was in the hospital recovering from a second cancer operation, was confronted by her husband carrying a yellow legal pad filled with a list of his wishes regarding how the divorce should be handled. He wanted her to sign it, then and there, even though she was still groggy from surgery. When Gingrich abandoned his family he left them near destitute.
....Mary Kahn, a reporter who covered [Newt] Gingrich: Newt [Gingrich] uses people and then discards them as useless. He's like a leech. He really is a man with no conscience. He just doesn't seem to care who he hurts or why.
....L. H. Carter, once a close friend and adviser to Newt Gingrich: The important thing you have to understand about Newt Gingrich is that he is amoral. There isn't any right or wrong, there isn't any conservative or liberal. There's only what will work best for Newt Gingrich. He's probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. ---Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean

Religion....Most dominators only go to church for marrying and burying. This would be "Three strikes and ye're out" as far as the religiously ethnocentric high RWAs are concerned except for one thing. Dominators can easily pretend to be religious, saying the right words and claiming a deep personal belief and....gullible right-wing authoritarians will go out on almost any limb, walk almost any plank to believe them.  So some non-religious dominators. as part of the act. do go to church regularly, for manipulative reasons. [2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

Social dominators....admit, anonymously, to striving to manipulate others, and to being dishonest, two-faced, treacherous, and amoral. It's as if someone took the Scout Law ("A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly. ...") and turned it completely upside down: "A 'winner' is deceitful, manipulative, unfair, base, conniving...." Furthermore, while the followers may feel admiration bordering on adoration of their leaders, we should not be surprised if the leaders feel a certain contempt for their followers. They are the suckers, the "marks." the fools social dominators find so easy to manipulate. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

Dominators aren't usually afraid that civilization might collapse and lawlessness ensue. Laws, they think, are not something you should necessarily obey in the first place, so much as things you should not get caught disobeying. And as for self-righteousness, it's pretty irrelevant to people as amoral as most social dominators tend to be. They may speak of the righteousness of their cause, but that's usually just to assure and motivate their followers. Might makes right for social dominators.
    .....So social dominators might incite authoritarian followers to commit a hate crime, but the dominators and followers probably launch the attack for different reasons: the dominator out of meanness, as an act of intimidation and control; the follower out of fear and self-righteousness in the name of authority. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

Persons who score highly on the Social Dominance scale do not usually have all the nooks and crannies, contradictions and tendency to trust people who tell them what they want to hear. They've got their head together. Nor are most of them dogmatic or particularly zealous about any cause or philosophy. You have to believe in something to be dogmatic and zealous, and what social dominators apparently believe in most is not some creed or cause, but gaining power by any means fair or foul.
    The "soundness" of their thinking hardly means you can believe them, however. They are quite capable of saying whatever will get them ahead. After all. they hold that there's no such thing as "right" and "wrong." It all boils down to what you can get away with. And one of the most useful skills a person should develop, they say, is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly.  So like high RWAs, social dominators are quite capable of hypocrisy—the difference being that the RWAs probably don't realize the hypocrisy because their thinking is so compartmentalized, whereas the dominators do but don't care. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

He's against programs that would give the disadvantaged a better chance. Does he really believe the poor can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or is he content to let them face an uphill struggle that very few can overcome? It doesn't bother the social dominator that masses of people are poor. That's their tough luck. And some racial groups are just naturally inferior to others, he says. Justice should not be applied equally to all. The rich and powerful should have advantages in court, even if that completely violates the concept of justice. Who cares if prejudice plays a role in the justice system? He certainly doesn't. The "right people" should have more votes than everybody else in elections. And so on.
    If you stare deeply into the souls of social dominator, they believe "equality" is a sucker word. Only fools believe in it, they say. And if people took equality seriously, if society did try to provide equal opportunity for all, and if the playing field really were made level so that bootstraps could be pulled up and multitudes of lives bettered, the social dominator knows he would get less. And he very much dislikes that notion. He says so. [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

High social dominators among university students say it has been their experience that:
Deceit and cheating were good tactics because it led to what they wanted.
Taking advantage of "suckers" felt great.
They've enjoyed having power and having people afraid of them.
"Losers" deserved what happened to them.
It's smart to use whatever power you have in a situation to get what you want.
Life boils down to what you can get away with.People who suffer misfortunes deserve them because they are lazy or dumb or made bad moves.
And of course, they say their lives have taught them that "Life is a jungle." [Book 2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

There are people who talk about God but are not the least bit religious or spiritual. These are people who may appear to be in Stage Four, who can wear Stage Four veneer— like certain cult leaders—but who, in fact, are Stage One criminals.-----THE STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH By M. Scott Peck, M.D.

Stage One, which I label "chaotic/antisocial." This stage probably encompasses about twenty percent of the population, including those whom I call people of the lie. In general, this is a stage of absent spirituality and the people at this stage are utterly unprincipled. I call it antisocial because while they are capable of pretending to be loving, actually all of their relationships with their fellow human beings are self-serving and covertly, if not overtly, manipulative.-----THE STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH By M. Scott Peck, M.D.