Why We Need to Talk About Left-Wing Authoritarianism

Listen on: Spotify | Youtube | Apple Podcasts | and wherever you get your podcasts….

Surely, the thinking goes, authoritarianism is a problem on the right, not the left. For many, especially here in Canada, ‘right wing’ is basically synonymous with authoritarianism. But, a surprisingly high percentage of self-identified progressives are punitive, bullying and intolerant of disagreement: authoritarian traits. This phenomenon is largely undocumented in the media or in the academic research. My guest today—social psychologist and researcher Luke Conway—is very concerned about rise in authoritarianism, it all its flavours. But, in his recent book, Liberal Bullies, he addresses this blindspot we have when it comes to left wing authoritarianism. We discuss his book and the research into authoritarianism.

About the Guest

Dr. Lucian Gideon Conway, III is a Professor of Psychology at Grove City College. He is an Associate Editor of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and a Fellow in the Society of Experimental Social Psychology. Links:

X: @LGConwayIII
Substack: The Apologetic Professor
Book: Liberal Bullies: Inside the Mind of the Authoritarian Left

Episode Overview

The discussion explores the often-overlooked phenomenon of left-wing authoritarianism, challenging the widespread notion that authoritarianism is an issue exclusive to the political right. While acknowledging that right-wing authoritarianism is well-documented and historically prominent (especially post-World War II), Dr. Conway argues that similar traits—punitive attitudes, intolerance of dissent, and controlling behaviors—are increasingly present among progressives and within left-leaning institutions, especially in academia and media.

Highlights of the Conversation:

1. Defining Authoritarianism Across the Spectrum:

Conway emphasizes that authoritarians are not defined by left or right politics, but by the desire for their group to be treated differently (preferentially) by authorities, often at the expense of out-groups.
He notes that authoritarianism involves hypocrisy on principles—demanding free speech protections for one’s own group while being comfortable with censorship or punitive action toward opposing groups.

2. Academic and Cultural Blind Spots:

Conway shares his experience of being labeled a conspiracy theorist for presenting mainstream academic studies that challenged prevailing liberal orthodoxies during a faculty meeting. This turning point shifted his interest in authoritarianism from purely academic to deeply personal and practical.
He describes the research bias within his field: For decades, studies and measurement tools focused solely on right-wing authoritarianism, often using methods that made it impossible to detect left-wing authoritarian behavior.

3. Measuring Authoritarianism (and its Flaws):

Conway explains that authoritarianism is difficult to study without ideological content; however, past studies failed to ask parallel questions for both left and right—resulting in a skewed view that left-wing authoritarianism was nearly non-existent.
When his research team designed balanced tools, they found left- and right-wing authoritarianism to be more evenly distributed, context-dependent, and similar in traits.

4. The Role of Fear and Identity:

Fear, he asserts, is a core driver of authoritarian tendencies on both sides. When threatened or anxious, people become more willing to embrace strong leaders and suppress dissent.
Identity and group loyalty fuel selective application of principles. Authoritarians want rules applied harshly to “enemies,” but not to themselves—a pattern visible in both conservative and progressive culture wars.

5. The “Great Awokening” and Secularization of Academia:

Sean and Luke discuss the increasing dogmatism in elite institutions, fueled by a kind of “religious fervor” or “monoculture” around progressive ideas. Conway posits that the decline of traditional religion among left-leaning groups has led to politics and ideology acting as replacement belief systems, resulting in less tolerance for dissent.
This new orthodoxy creates environments where debate is stifled and dissenters are demonized—which Conway likens to the social mechanisms of traditional religion.

6. Traits of Modern Authoritarianism:

Intellectual apathy: Authoritarians resist nuanced debate and are less likely to engage complicated arguments.
Simplicity: They prefer black-and-white explanations of social and political problems (e.g., Ibram X. Kendi’s “anti-racist”/“racist” dichotomy).
Obsession with misinformation: There’s a growing push, particularly on the left recently, for censorship and control of information—justified by concerns about “misinformation.” Both sides, however, weaponize this when in power.
Self-ignorance: Left-wing authoritarians, Conway’s research shows, are often less aware of their own authoritarian traits and tendencies than their right-wing counterparts, consistently denying that their behavior is authoritarian—even when objectively measured as such.

7. Solutions and Institutional Reform:

They discuss the dilemma of addressing political monocultures in public institutions like universities. Conway is wary of heavy-handed right-wing punitive actions (like mass firings or government overreach), but acknowledges the need for affirmative steps—such as affirmative action for conservative scholars at state-funded universities—to restore balance and viewpoint diversity.
He draws a distinction between public and private institutions, arguing for different standards regarding speech and pluralism.

8. Polarization, Hypocrisy, and the Importance of Shared Principles:

The conversation wraps with reflections on how both sides increasingly prioritize loyalty over shared democratic values, leading to rising mutual distrust.
Despite deepening polarization, Conway stresses the possibility (and necessity) of vigorous but respectful disagreement to sustain a healthy democracy. Empirical studies show that simple humanizing contact (sharing a coffee, seeing civil discussions) can reduce polarization significantly.

Final Thoughts:
The episode concludes with a hopeful note: While concerned about the decline of norms and rise of double standards, Conway believes most people across the spectrum can find common ground and respect if they move past the caricatures presented on social media and in extreme discourse. He promotes the classical liberal principle of equal application of rules and rights as the antidote to authoritarian impulses, left and right.

Resources:
Listeners are directed to Luke Conway’s Substack (“The Apologetic Professor”), his Google Scholar page, and other online profiles for further reading.

In summary:
This episode delivers a thought-provoking exploration into how authoritarianism manifests on both sides of the aisle, why it’s often overlooked on the left, and what might be done to foster healthier, more pluralistic discourse—especially within powerful cultural institutions.