Should Trump win the election, he will take it as proof of his infallible instincts. How does an infallible man behave in a position of power? A bit like Hitler, no?
I never defined authoritarian, but if I had I would come up with something close to that. Let me define an authoritarian as someone who believes that being in a position of power entitles that person to make policy decisions by fiat. Further thoughts:
1. The nature of the Presidency, as an elected office occupied by a single individual, lends itself to authoritarianism. It inspires awe among journalists, worship among citizens, and sycophancy among aides. It selects for narcissists.
2. I think that in the United States, the “Overton Window” has moved mostly in the authoritarian direction over the last century.
3. Woodrow Wilson very much wanted to go in the authoritarian direction, and our entry into World War I gave him a bit of an opportunity to do so. Calvin Coolidge went in the other direction.
4. FDR moved the U.S. in authoritarian direction. Ike tried to go in the other direction.
5. On domestic policy, I believe that Lyndon Johnson was not authoritarian, in that he played by the existing rules. However, with Vietnam, he set a precedent for deception and unilateral warmaking.
6. Richard Nixon unintentionally caused a reversal in authoritarianism. Congress impeached him and also tried to (re-)assert authority over the budget process.
7. Because Barack Obama is convinced of his own absolute moral righteousness, he acts as if his instincts were infallible. Thus, I believe that he meets the commenter’s definition of authoritarian. Of course, those who share Mr. Obama’s outlook woulds say that he has merely responded appropriately to Republican obstruction.
8. By my definition, Mr. Trump speaks like an authoritarian.
9. However, I am more worried that the the country will move in authoritarian direction if Mrs. Clinton wins. Many in Mr. Trump’s own party are opposed to his authoritarianism. Not so with Mrs. Clinton and her party. She is Nixon without anyone to play the role of Howard Baker.
10. Hitler was more than an authoritarian (by my definition). He used murder and physical intimidation to try to eliminate all opposition. I am not worried about either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton doing that.
Trump learned from his bankruptcies. Unlike Obama, he’s done stuff and failed. That was why he had the money to buy the Kluge and Gosman estates during the recession, he wasn’t overlevered like everybody else. Trump understands the value of limiting your downside and maximizing upside (positive optionality), that’s why he gets other people to finance everything (including free media) and he makes money if it works, they lose if it doesn’t.
Nationalism is authoritarianism in some peoples minds, or a subset at least, and we can all agree he is a nationalist. Beyond that, whatever definition anyone throws out is Not Even Wrong and doesnt really serve any other than to call names, signal something or other, or to push a narrative. None of this can be tested because no one is really making any predictions. What would be really interesting is to see some actual bets, and some skin in the game. Given he is elected, what do all of these He is Hitler Reborn types think he is actually going to accomplish, and how much are they willing to bet?
1. Wouldn’t the first potential authoritarian President be Teddy Roosevelt not Wilson. It strikes me the start of authoritarian President came at the exact time of technology was ‘shrinking’ the US. (And we remember Germany did commit to acts of war to get Wilson to ask for Declaration.)
2. I don’t see how Eisenhower tried to shrink authoritarian direction. The buildup and usage of the military was huge and he did interfere with a lot of foreign nations even without an invasion. Didn’t Eisenhower commit the original sin in Iran?
3) I don’t see Richard Nixon tried to shrink authoritarian direction. Examples please. It appeared he spent his first term doing everything to win Vietnam.
4) In terms of authoritarian direction didn’t Ronald Reagan sell Iran weapons to keep a Civil War going in Latin America? (It appears the Cold War help conservative rationalize our authoritarian government.)
5) I will state my California (Latino) neighbors are certainly more alarmed by the potential Trump Authoritarianism than HRC.
6) In terms of Authoritarianism of the President and Federal Government, the two key items were the Cold War and The Civil Rights Voting Act. Although I would like to roll back the private clauses in the Civil Rights Act in long run, it free a lot of citizens at the expense of private and state rights. And the Cold War and (later) War on Terror has excused a lot of conservative authoritarianism.
The important thing isn’t what someone tried to do, it’s what he’s unintentionally caused to happen in the real world.
“Many in Mr. Trump’s own party are opposed to his authoritarianism. Not so with Mrs. Clinton and her party.”
I think you say that because of how you view the stance of the democratic party towards regulation and faith in government in general. But if you look at how democrats view foreign policy, the surveillance state, the role of the press, etc…, there are large constituencies that push back hard, and we see that on display at the convention.
Trump has no record whatsoever in a government role or even in any structural arrangement where he shares power with anyone successfully. We only have his rhetoric, and I don’t see how anyone can listen to that rhetoric and come away with any confidence that he can handle this role.
And yet for almost every project where Donald Trump was the “face”, he was only able to do that project by negotiation and cooperation with hundreds of individuals, private and government. And to continue the project, he had to have continuing cooperation of unions, tradesmen, contractors, suppliers, etc.
These are great blog posts but I would prefer if you stopped referring to the comparisons to Hitler.
Presidents crowing about their “mandate” after winning elections is a huge pet peeve of mine. Congrats, 20-30% of the adult population voted for you. A huge chunk of those people were voting for the party name or against the other guy. Probably 5% of adults actually like you or even know anything about you.
The US does not deal well with pluralities. Voting systems aren’t set up handle them. The popular narrative always demands a winner or loser, so the plurality winner (or majority winner in a two-party race with typically low turnout) is given a lot more credit than they deserve.
Every time I hear of someone arguing for the strong executive I don’t seem to hear anyone explaining why they want it. It seems like a fetish. I don’t even think they know of anything they could want that they can’t already have.
I think this confuses leadership with authoritarianism. Everyone I know of believes in leaders that lead, from boardroom to presidency. That doesn’t mean following the polls or knowing best, but the wisdom to know the difference and the courage to follow it. There is a difference between power that comes with position, seizing power, and having power yielded to them, or having power thrust on them. There is a difference between gauging or gathering input, obtaining consensus, making decisions, and executing them.
I recall puzzling through this work a while ago:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
It does have some sort of survey instrument or psychometric instrument–used within the Soviet Union as well as elsewhere, if I recall.
One of the author’s points was that authoritarians have a self-righteous desire to punish those who disagree with them, and who oppose them. (rather than just shrugging one’s shoulders and saying “ok, whatever, I won this last struggle, decisions had to be made.”) Harry S. Truman was not authoritarian when he said “The buck stops here.”
= – = – = – = = – = – =
I’m guessing that “authoritian” as a descriptive category has come to mean too many things. When you encounter the word, you still have to figure out what is mean by the term.
In that case it has become rather like “nationalism” now means too many things (nationalism can mean ethno-nationalism (see works of Connor Walker), it can mean patriotism, it can mean dislike of rule by foreigners, it can mean republicanism and anti-monarchical strivings).
= – = – = – =
One thing I like about Altmeyer’s work is it mentions the desire to punish the opponents within the community who are standing in the way of progress.
I took a look at your link. The lack of self-reflection in it is frightening.
My friend recommended the link. I never made it all the way through. I thought I enjoyed the psychometric instrument.
I recall he didn’t seem to get it published by a reputable press, so maybe it’s an “orphan” work he gave up on and just abandoned to the public as a free PDF.
I’m not a tech-head that way, but if you can’t measure attitudes its hard to compare them. (Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the most authoritanian of them all?)
Martin Seligman, for example, mentions research with quantitative mesaurements of optimism during presidential speeches. over the last 100 years.
Googling: Authoritarian “Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom”
And, when libertarians pass out that World’s Smallest Political Quiz it is Authoritarian at the opposite quadrant from libertarianism. And the context of this discussion was the link to Matt Welch. So, for the sake of this discussion, I’d say that’s a good working definition. In practice, it probably does mean something close to policy by fiat. It overlaps with nationalism and populism and nativism, etc. but is distinct, strictly speaking.
President Hilary Clinton may not face much opposition from fellow Democrats, but there is still the hope that the Republicans will control at least one house of Congress, in which case–even though they are not opposed in principle to authoritarianism–they will block many of President Clinton’s initiatives.
If it is authoritarianism that is the concern, the Hillary is by far the greatest threat. She has the backing of the party infrastructure. Many party operatives have been in political positions in government for 7+ years. She represents the party that has the sympathy of the majority of career government employees. And she benefits from the culture and philosophies promoted by the professors of political science, history, law, geography and philosophy, as well as others to imbue their disciples with support of the “servile ideology”, the hatred of markets and enterprises, and to become an individual who “distrusts the effects of individual initiative and individual enterprise; who is easily convinced of the utility of an assumption, by the State, of functions which have hitherto been left to personal choices and personal aims”.
Contrast that to Trump who must develop alliances with seasoned political players to promote even the simplest of tasks against the entrenched interests and who will be appointing new, mostly Republican, individuals to implement his policies in the faces of a hostile workforce. All the while, facing a news media that has rediscovered its role of reporting on government rather than advocating for political programs.
“an authoritarian as someone who believes that being in a position of power entitles that person to make policy decisions by fiat.”
You mean someone who might ignore all the objections raised about establishing a communications system outside the purview of agency employees and who might have closely associated individuals who let it be known that the matter is not to be brought up again or there will be consequences for the speaker?
Or how about someone who feels that it makes no difference to investigate the decisions and actions that intersected with the death of an American Ambassador and Americans defending an American consulate?
People still don’t get it was the “professional classes” that brought Hitler to power. National Socialism and Fascism is white collar proletarian and always have been. They believe in the ancient times they were the true leaders(in Vedic terms Kshatriyas) and the modern decadence of society has put the weaker “merchant” caste above them.
Trump is doing typical anti-modernistic petty bourgeois politics. Nothing more or less. If Bill Clinton was anti-modernistic, he would be Nazi. Part of why many can’t stand trump isn’t because of whether it is modernistic or anti-modernistic, but because it is “bourgeois”.
“Because Barack Obama is convinced of his own absolute moral righteousness, he acts as if his instincts were infallible. Thus, I believe that he meets the commenter’s definition of authoritarian.”
The more correct term for this particular brand is “paternalism” which is an essentially un-democratic notion; however, it is understandable that paternal elites would prefer their paternal instincts over the restrictions set up in a democratic governmental framework. Policy must prevail over institutional restrictions. But once they get a taste of power the erosion of democratic restrictions can lead to authoritarianism. See, Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, etc. The brand of de facto elite paternalism practiced in many European countries is, I think, a vestige of feudalism. And, there is nothing American progressives want more than “to be like Europe”.
We have numerous examples of “infallible” men in positions of power: Popes.
I think I would define “authoritarian” or “authoritarianism” more like this:
An individual, group or idea* that desires, supports or encourages the use of force and coercion, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, to achieve their objectives.
*Regardless of political party, position, title, current actual possession of power or ability to execute their plans, etc.
The problem with this definition is that from the libertarian perspective (and by this, I also mean the correct perspective) is that all government rests on force and coercion.
So, I’d start with your definition but add that authoritarianism also involves centralization of the authority as opposed to distribution to states and localities.
I’m not sure why I see that as a problem with my definition.
First, I agree that “all government rests on force and coercion” and thus, by that definition, are authoritarian. On this point, do you believe there are legitimate uses of force and coercion that are not authoritarian?
Second, as to the centralization part, I agree that authoritarianism can be centralized and over a wide and wider geographical area…making it far worse in terms of its impact. But I also think authoritarianism can live in a small town, heck a family or it can dwell inside the mind (granted with much less impact on others) of a person without any actual power (yet). More succinctly, I don’t think centralization is a requirement for the definition of authoritarianism but it is helpful for implementing it.
Personally, as with many things, I think the *idea and philosophy* of authoritarianism is the biggest problem. Because agreement to it (even unwittingly) gives strength and “legitimacy” to those who actually practice it.
That particular “libertarian” idea – opposition to force and coercion – is a flop. As any good communist will tell you, private property relies on force and coercion – and that’s not wrong. So now where are we?
Libertarianism must be about what it says: liberty. That is, a presumptive right to do as you wish. Presumptive, not absolute, because others must also be considered: the liberty of your fist stops before the bridge of my nose. Libertarians are not anarchists (and vice versa): libertarians recognize the role, importance – inevitability – of government. They propose that government should err on the side of liberty, but accept that there may be compelling reasons for restraining liberty, for example in enforcing stop light laws, requiring disclosures of conflicts of interest, and so on. They differ from modern social democrats in that they do not accept that majority rule is the right answer on every issue: they fear the tyranny of the majority, and suggest that government should too.
Opposition to all use of force, to all coercion, is pacifist anarchism (or anarchic pacifism), and it’s a dead end because any organized non-pacifist will beat it every time.