The Rise of American Authoritarianism

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Messages
12,368
This is something I've actually studied off and on for awhile. I am a pretty hard core civil liberties guy, so this tends to pique my interest generally. I am glad to see people broadcast it a little more so it can be combated.

The rise of American authoritarianism
 
Hopefully, if a Republican wins the White House, the left will suddenly care again.
That would be nice. All parties are authoritarian. Everyone supports the authoritarian that is on their side. I remember the Bushies loving the powergrab for the executive branch, totally blind to the fact that someone else might get the keys.
Ancient Greek had the concept of a tyrant that took charge when needed, and it seems that this is what Trump is. Supporters don't necessarrily like authoritarianism, they see it as a necessary evil to fix the current situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All parties are authoritarian.

Not the Libertarians.

Anyone who thinks authoritarianism is necessary for anything has basically no grasp of history. It never ends well.

It's also important to note stuff like war time measures in western democracies in WWII were not examples of authoritarianism. They did however go in for xenophobia in a big way here in the States.
 
Not the Libertarians.

Anyone who thinks authoritarianism is necessary for anything has basically no grasp of history. It never ends well.
The Libertarians have never had the authority to exercise authoritarianism.
Clearly people have decided that Trump is better than all the other choices, all of which are at least equally authoritarian. Given that choice, pick the one that is on your side and not against you. Also, what is the egalitarian unstructured way to overthrow a disloyal duopoly?
 
The Libertarians have never had the authority to exercise authoritarianism.
Clearly people have decided that Trump is better than all the other choices, all of which are at least equally authoritarian. Given that choice, pick the one that is on your side and not against you. Also, what is the egalitarian unstructured way to overthrow a disloyal duopoly?

This is one of the more absurd things I have read today. The only one approaching Trump levels of authoritarianism is Bernie, and he is a far cry. Trump is one step from fascism.

I am sorry you feel there are sides though.
 
so he's sneaking up on the house but he's not yet on the right street?
You have to be mildly authoritarian to implement what he wants to do. Not that congress would let him or anything

I give him credit for at least having his heart in the right place and being a decent human, as opposed to the walking sack of excrement that is Donald Trump.
 
I'm curious as to how one defines fascism. I can't see how Trump would be moreso than either Roosevelt, for starters.
There are several articles on how we're all fascists now. Which candidate has some rigid principles that are not authoritarian?
 
fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun
noun: fascism; noun: Fascism; plural noun: Fascisms
  1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;More
    Nazism, rightism;
    nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism;
    jingoism, isolationism;
    neofascism, neo-Nazism
    "a film depicting the rise of fascism in the 1930s"
    • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.


I'm not sure how to proceed if you would come up with the Roosevelts as comparisons. Teddy was more akin to Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump, and was very much an internationalist, unlike both the current campaigners. Roosevelt was also noted for trying to improve race relations, and famously said whites would debase themselves if they debased blacks. Trump meanwhile courts hate groups and proposes banning people based on their religion, which is essentially the most flagrant violation of the Constitution there is. If you wanted a modern context for fascism, I guess a good starting point would be to want to rip up the Constitution and impose autocracy, which Trump has championed on many occasions. No one else wants that. Not to mention his rallies are straight out of the 1930's Germany or Italy, complete with beating those that aren't part of the group.

I'm sure you can find wackball articles arguing all sorts of things, including we are all fascists or whatever nonsense you like (I mean Grand Potentate Grand Potentate does it all the time), but in real life that is laughable. Has the Presidential scope expanded? Most certainly, and you are spot on the FDR drove a big part of it, but that has nothing to do with fascism.

I'd say no candidate but Sanders has rigid principles either, certainly not Trump, he is by far the least principled.
 
I'd say no candidate but Sanders has rigid principles either, certainly not Trump, he is by far the least principled.
I'd argue with this. He's got two principles, power and greed. The means by which he's willing to achieve those shift, but the underlying principles don't change.
 
I'd argue with this. He's got two principles, power and greed. The means by which he's willing to achieve those shift, but the underlying principles don't change.

Fair enough, I'll agree to that.
 
Godwin time! Surely this is the thing that really worries (((Amanda Taub))).
Authoritarian left good, authoritarian right bad!

I think you actually have to get to Hitler before it's Godwin, but honestly, this may be the first instance it's the correct resolution.

Are you saying I'm lefty? You may have to excuse me for awhile till I finish lol'ing.
 
All the articles by writers like (((Taub))) have this blind bias.
TR actually ran on a platform of New Nationalism.
Why I Support Donald Trump: He's The New Roosevelt
FDR was responsible for all kinds of unconstitutional things that he plowed through and forced on the people. But he was a Democrat, so it's okay! FDR's minumum wage cost about half a million black jobs and Jesse Owens wrote "Hitler didn't snub me; it was out president [FDR] who snubbed me. The president didn't even send a telegram."
 
All the articles by writers like (((Taub))) have this blind bias.
TR actually ran on a platform of New Nationalism.
Why I Support Donald Trump: He's The New Roosevelt
FDR was responsible for all kinds of unconstitutional things that he plowed through and forced on the people. But he was a Democrat, so it's okay! FDR's minumum wage cost about half a million black jobs and Jesse Owens wrote "Hitler didn't snub me; it was out president [FDR] who snubbed me. The president didn't even send a telegram."

Ok, just as long as you aren't accusing me of it. I've never voted for a democrat for president in my life.

It's the chic argument to compare what is happening now to the Roosevelt Taft split, but Wendell Wilkie is more accurate, though he wasn't fanning the flames of bigotry and fascism. People are stretching for all sorts of comparisons to justify why they like Trump. Edward Luttnak, certified nutter, who has been whining about China and other stuff wrote an Op-ed in the Journal today about how Reagan and Trump are similar, because Trump validates his cockamamie positions. It's absurd and quite sad though.

FDR totally gave the middle finger to the constitution. I think he was a shithead personally, and a highly overrated president. The economy was coming back, he just rode the wave and saddled us with heavy burdens and executive overreach precedent. But that isn't fascism. Fascism is by definition far right, so it's not a bias, it's fact.
 
I can't argue with the notion that the SJWs have pushed too far and this is backlash. That says nothing about the trade, immigration, and war issues though. Trump has a broad coalition behind him for good reasons.
 
Not the Libertarians.

Anyone who thinks authoritarianism is necessary for anything has basically no grasp of history. It never ends well.

It's also important to note stuff like war time measures in western democracies in WWII were not examples of authoritarianism. They did however go in for xenophobia in a big way here in the States.

Not sure I agree with this. There are times and places where an authoritarian government maybe a necessity. Countries racked by tribal in-fighting for example like most of the middle-east.

John Stuart Mill recognised this and said as much in his book On Liberty.
 
I can't argue with the notion that the SJWs have pushed too far and this is backlash. That says nothing about the trade, immigration, and war issues though. Trump has a broad coalition behind him for good reasons.
Well, I would say that the article doesn't say that, but ok. More about how people are scared intolerant pussies.

Trump has cornered the market on that for sure.

Given that Trump says he wants to send 30,000 US troops to Syria, might want to reconsider that part too.
 
Not sure I agree with this. There are times and places where an authoritarian government maybe a necessity. Countries racked by tribal in-fighting for example like most of the middle-east.

John Stuart Mill recognised this and said as much in his book On Liberty.

Given that the authoritarian structure that existed before the current fighting is what propagated the mess, I'd disagree. It takes a commitment to rule of law by it's populace and the ability to set aside grievances.

But my above statement is specifically for mature republics.
 
Given that the authoritarian structure that existed before the current fighting is what propagated the mess, I'd disagree. It takes a commitment to rule of law by it's populace and the ability to set aside grievances.

But my above statement is specifically for mature republics.

No, what propagated the mess was the West removing a dictator, thinking it could import democracy on the cheap. The middle-east was more stable when Saddam was in power than it is now. This is undeniable.

Democracy is embodied in institutions and modes of behaviour, it cannot be transplanted at the drop of a hat. regardless of what Crypto-Trotskyist-Neo-Conservatives (now that's a mouthful) like to think
 
No, what propagated the mess was the West removing a dictator, thinking it could import democracy on the cheap. The middle-east was more stable when Saddam was in power than it is now. This is undeniable.

Democracy is embodied in institutions and modes of behaviour, it cannot be transplanted at the drop of a hat. regardless of what Crypto-Trotskyist-Neo-Conservatives (now that's a mouthful) like to think

You are thinking too narrowly in terms of scope. Yes it was stable for a few decades. It was stable and declining. All hell was going to break loose regardless. Saddam toppling was just the precipitator. Do you really posit that all these Arab Spring participants would have just stood around twiddling thumbs had he still been there? Even setting aside he fact that the agitators were already in motion for decades, it's still not a tenable position.

I agree about democracy, what the US tried in Iraq was absurd. But there are endless other modes. Your own country translated monarchism into representative democracy in a very effective way, much more so than say the French. This would have been a far more favorable outcome in the Middle East. But then this goes back to the populace yada, yada...

This all said, the point still remains that authoritarianism never works, this is historical fact. There is rebellion by a disenfranchised class in literally every example in history. If there is any danger in the US, it is the tyranny of the majority, which our government was specifically design to prevent.
 
We're rather seeing how democracy doesn't work so well either, no?.
Trump is quite happy to let Russia continue the cleanup in Syria.
More about how people are scared intolerant pussies.
The intolerant are the overreaching PC police, and they are insatiable as evidenced by their support for mutilating preteen sex organs and seeking to destroy all that disagree. That nonsense has reached a point where the straight talker is needed to restore balance, not the appeaser.
I've heard that one reason the Talian was basically welcomed into Afghanistan was that their promise to clean up the homosexual problem. A society can only take so much unsustainable behavior before it has to lay down the law.
 
and they are insatiable as evidenced by their support for mutilating preteen sex organs

giphy.gif


You haven't gotten less insane I see.
 
There are times and places where an authoritarian government maybe a necessity.
Yes. It is clear that many people see here and now as such. When a slippery slope has built up momentum, you need a sudden opposing force to correct it. It is happening.
 
You are thinking too narrowly in terms of scope. Yes it was stable for a few decades. It was stable and declining. All hell was going to break loose regardless. Saddam toppling was just the precipitator. Do you really posit that all these Arab Spring participants would have just stood around twiddling thumbs had he still been there? Even setting aside he fact that the agitators were already in motion for decades, it's still not a tenable position.

I agree about democracy, what the US tried in Iraq was absurd. But there are endless other modes. Your own country translated monarchism into representative democracy in a very effective way, much more so than say the French. This would have been a far more favorable outcome in the Middle East. But then this goes back to the populace yada, yada...

It's certainly correct that what the US tried to do in Iraq was absurd. It was an utter calamity and - as I've said before - George W. Bush's administration, including Bush himself, should be blamed very harshly for it. It has a huge number of flow-on effects, including a massive, massive blow-out in US debt, increased oil prices, increased terrorism and unrest (ironically, precisely what the US was ostensibly trying to avoid), and a diversion of much-needed resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, which resulted in chaos in Afghanistan. An extremely unfortunate and regrettable affair.

However, as doghouse doghouse said, Hussein's rule would have come to an end one way or another and, when it ended, it's more than likely that it would not have been an easy transition.

Authoritarian rule in the Middle East has been an aid to the US in the short- to medium-term, but it will be a long-term bane to the US and to the Middle East itself. The US cosied up to authoritarian regimes - not only in the ME but around the world - because they offered stability and predictability. In a fantastic demonstration of realpolitik, successive US administrations of both stripes were prepared to hypocritically sacrifice their domestic democratic ideals for some temporary stability.

In places like SE Asia and South America, the US was worried about keeping a lid on "communism". In the ME, the US was worried about keeping a lid on Islamic extremism. However, in the case of the ME, all that supporting authoritarian regimes did was delay the day of reckoning. In fact, at the risk of stretching the metaphor, keeping on lid on Islamic extremism resulted in a pressure-cooker environment, guaranteeing that the end result would be all the more explosive when the lid came off.

Of course, this isn't all the US's fault - it's mostly the fault of the authoritarian regimes themselves, as they mostly subjugated the populace, did little to assist in the development of their countries, and in the case of the oil-rich countries, mainly pissed away the black gold without reinvesting the money into infrastructure to benefit the population. However, the support that the US gave to these regimes gave them at least the veneer of legitimacy within the international community and, unfortunately for the US, it also gave the unhappy, downtrodden people within those countries something to aim their anger at. Not only were they angry at their despotic dictators - they were angry at the country that supported the dictator and provided the regime with the weapons to control them.

That sort of behaviour was always going to end badly.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom