On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Why not say that there's some link between sexual repression and
> authoritarian politics - that sexually repressed people are more likely
> than others to be drawn to authoritarianism, and that authoritarians are
> more likely to favor a sexually repressive agenda - and leave universals
> out of it? It sure seems like a lot of authoritarians have promoted
> sexually repressive agendas.
This may be sort of a self confirming definition. Many if not most documented cult leaders (which I would consider the literal apotheosis of authoritarian leadership) have been sexually very adventurous and transgressive, and it seems to have been a major contributor to the cult dynamic. But normally we don't consider that sexually revolutionary because it's a reactionary doing it.
Meanwhile on the nation level, there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency to explain. Traditional conservatives are people who think society will break up if we don't actively keep it together. So they extol authority (which they conceive of as the centrifugal force of society) and oppose changes in customs (which they conceive of as the melting of society). And since social mores were less liberated in the past, they are against liberation of those mores.
It seems like two perfectly consistent sides of the same worldview which has been around for centuries. I don't see the puzzle that needs explaining, never mind needing a super speculative explanation.
Michael