This study explored the role of authoritarianism in presidential decision-making regarding the use of force. Harry Truman's decision to fight in Korea, John Kennedy's decision to increase American military advisers in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson's decision to increase American forces in Vietnam, Richard Nixon's decision to invade Cambodia, Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada, and George Bush's decision to attack Iraq were studied using the Revised Authoritarianism Questionnaire (RAQ), designed for the study on the basis of earlier field studies using the F-Scale (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, 1950) and the RWA scale (Altemeyer, 1988). The RAQ was used to do a content analysis of writings about the six presidents' decisions to use force in order to determine the degree of authoritarianism in the decision making process. – Theoretical literature on authoritarianism including Wilhelm Reich, Erich FROMM, Max Horkheimer, Abraham Maslow and others was reviewed. Field studies of authoritarianism: the F-Scale (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, 1950), the Authoritarian-Equalitarian Scale (F. Sanford, 1950), and the RWA scale (Altemeyer, 1988) were also reviewed. Precis of writings about the decisions were taken from the writings of the presidents, their aides and advisers, and other sources with first-hand information. Balance was sought among supporters and opponents of each president in the precis. The RAQ is a twelve item scale which assesses directly the factors of authoritarianism. It is scored using a five-point Likert scale. Using the RAQ an overall authoritarianism rating as well as ratings on each of the scale items was obtained for each president studied.
This essay proposes to examine a limited number of critical assessments regarding the scientific status of psychoanalysis with reference to intents and purposes, claims and disclaimers, contrasting views of what constitutes a science and the nature of scientific thinking and how these might apply to psychoanalysis epistemologically. It assumes a certain degree of familiarity with criticisms that have been leveled against psychoanalysis from those who insist on absolutist testing for what some call true science, particularly on the part of those who are not practitioners of the art. It wonders about the concern with scientizing by those who actually practice it, or value it in some way or another. It suggests an open minded approach without premature or even warranted closure on the subject of human beings and of ways of getting to know them, let alone understanding them and perhaps being of help to them.