Who is the party of authoritarians?

A look at the authoritarian polices of Democrats and Republicans

from JoeUser Forums

Al Franken has apparently claimed that Republicans are the party of authoritarians and the Democrats now are the party of liberals and conservatives. Unbelieveable.

While the Republicans have been quite lackluster while in power these past 6 years, they've hardly been authoritarian. One could make the case that Bush himself acts a bit imperial, but no more imperial than many other Presidents have (a lot less than say FDR or LBJ -- any Democrats want to make the case that Bush has behaved more imperially than they did?).

People who are exceptionally into politics start to become a lot like people who are really into a MMO. Seriously. They start to lose perspective. This seems to happen, to varying degrees, to anyone regardless of their policital persuassion.

On the left, you have people frothing at the mouth about the Patriot act (which Democrats almost unanymously voted for incidentally), Guantanomo, wiretapping of foreign calls of suspected terrorists, etc.

On the right you have demonization of Nancy Pelosi, the assumption that upon having a slim majority that Democrats will pull us right out of Iraq, the UN, etc.

To those people I say: Take a deep breath. Re-adjust your perspective and ask how the government is interfering with your life or the life of anyone you know (or even take an extra degree of seperation).  Not theoretical interference but tangible, real world, intrusion.

Here are a few that come to mind and who is responsible for it:

  1. As a home owner, I cannot build on my property wherever I want. There are zones on land that I own that I am not permitted to build on because of environment regulations that, if you saw the land in question (there may have been a swamp there a hundred years ago) it's ridiculous. I'm not saying I would build on that, but the government is definitely intruding on me in a very tangible way. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).
  2. As a parent, I cannot just send my child to whatever public school I want. If my local school sucks, I can't just choose to send them somewhere else that has room for the child. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).
  3. Even though I am in perfect health and can easily provide health care for my family, 2.9% of my income is forcibly taken from me no matter how much I earn.  (Authoritarian source: Democrats)
  4. Similarly, 12.4% of my income is taken away for a forced retirement plan that I would be able to handle far better myself and so could most other people. (Authoritarian source: Democrats)
  5. As an employer, OSHA can tell me how my office should be furnished -- from chairs to lighting. (Authoritarian source: Democrats)
  6. As a student, I cannot be certain that I will be accepted at a major public university based on merit if my skin color is not favored by the government (Authoritarian source: Democrats).
  7. If you have conservative views and speak at a major university, you can be expected to be assaulted verbally (or violently) by left-wing protesters. There are 0 documented incidents for the reverse -- Michael Moore, and other left wingers have never been physically assaulted or shouted down at a major university they've spoken at.
  8. As an employer, I cannot hire or fire people as I please. Any form of discrimination (real or imagined) is strictly forbidden (Authoritarian source: Democrats).
  9. When I go to the mall on a cold rainy day with my infant daughter, I have to park further back from the store because the store was required by the government to provide several handicap parking spaces (usually unused). (Authoritarian source: Democrats)
  10. When I build an office, I am forced to build bathrooms of an extra large capacity in order to fit potentially handicap people even if my business is not a retail business (Authoritarian source: Democrats).
  11. When I ride a motorcycle, I am required to wear a helmet in Michigan. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).
  12. When I drive a car, I am required to wear a seat belt. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).

I could go on.  Now, you can read this list and say "Well these laws are good for us" or that they're good things. That's totally irrelevant.  Authoritarianism doesn't mean "evil horrible" control by the government, it just means government that dictates the "proper" way for people to live their lives.

I have seen a lot of angst about the potential abuse of the Patriot Act or military tribunals, but the things I listed aren't abstract. They are real, practical day to day ways in which our government forces us to behave in a certain way that one might argue is none of their damn business.  Sure, you can say Republicans would outlaw abortion if they could. Fine. But they are coming from the point of view that abortion is the murder of a child.

There are certainly examples of right-wing authoritarianism (the government telling us that what we can do to our own bodies in our own home. who can and can't get married to name two).

But in terms of things that affect you on a day to day basis, it's pretty overwhelming which party is the power of authoritarians. You may agree with those laws in the same way that one might agree with the laws of a benign dictator. But that doesn't make the dictator not a dictator.

politics
15,859 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is there anything more authoritarian than socialism? It political correctness and cultural sensitivity not authoritarian in nature? I've point out numerous times that while the main argument of pro-abortion folks is "choice" what they are really doing is denying the democratic right of the people in individual states to make law.

What are the pet projects of Dems in the last 40 years or so? Every single one has been an activist cause intended to force change on the unwilling, usually by doing an end-run around their democratic rights. No, I don't think anyone like Al Franken has any right to call anyone else authoritarian, when they can't go five minutes without telling how wrong it is that the world doesn't behave as they think it should.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
If your not rich and vote republican it is like a chiken voting for Col Sanders......

All republicans like to point out that dems voted for the Patriot Act, which for the record was pushed through on the heels of 9/11 and everyone at that time was extremely scared of everything. Sadly, they also like to say we dont like wiretapping of terrorists, which i think if you look past their slanted and biased versions of the truth, you will see that no that is definatly not the case. We are against the president king george saying he can avoid the system of checks and balances put into place by the founding fathers. FISA gives the president 3 days to wiretap, however since 9/11 georgy has went before the fisa secret judge for 5000 + applications for wiretaps and was only turned down three times. Therefore this implies that he knows that the system is in place he just wants total autonomy to self destruct the constitution with no supervision.



As for your list of 1-12, hell if those regulations are so damn bad why has your REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN HOUSE, AND REPUBLICAN SENATE not done a damn thing about it? Ya'll have had power to do anything you want for what? almost 7 years now and all you have been able to do is come up with a stupid color code in which to manipulate and scare voters 2 weeks before elections? sheeeeeeeAT! It is laughable that with control of both parts of congress and a republican president they still try to blame us democrats for their lack of initiative. Hell i think instead of whining about the MINORITY party i would just complain about my party not getting off their asses and doing something other than award no bid contracts to Halliburton
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is there anything more authoritarian than socialism?


I would rate Singapore as more authoritarian than Finland, but each to their own I suppose. You obviously rate the willing integration of government into society through elections as more authoritarian than paternalism and I suppose there's an argument for that.

I honestly think it's foolish to call a democractically elected government authoritarian, whether right-wing or left-wing. Authoritarian implies that the ruled have no choice in the matter when clearly they do. If you choose to be ruled with force, are you oppressed? I don't think so. You could have voted and campaigned for someone else. Your opppression is entirely of your own making and therefore not authoritarian.

Franken needs to do a bit of travelling and find out what it's like under a real authoritarian regime.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"You obviously rate the willing integration of government into society through elections as more authoritarian than paternalism and I suppose there's an argument for that."


"Willing" to you is different than it is to, say Al Sharpton, or Al Franken, or any five random Finns you pick up off the street. I think you'll find "willing" doesn't really matter much to activists who believe that their values are universal and should be imposed regardless of the views of the majority. When you speak to people who promote socially activist causes, do they usually tend to step back and say "Oh, well, but only if we can integrate it willingly..."
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Willing" to you is different than it is to, say Al Sharpton, or Al Franken, or any five random Finns you pick up off the street.


Sure. I've always agreed with Mencken that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

If they're stupid enough to vote for someone who'll take their freedoms away then the people deserve it. It's hardly authoritarian to do what the people want all the time. It can be cruel, but it's not authoritarian.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have to give some of the credit for OSHA and the EPA's wetlands laws to Richard Nixon, who signed the bills creating both agencies.

No Child Left Behind would fit easily on your "authoritarian" list if you gave it the proper slant -- "I can't get my local school board to teach my child the way I want because the federal government determines what they have to study."

Republicans may not be authoritarian in contrast to Democrats, but they sure are in contrast to Libertarians.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
First sign that the whole "Party of Authoritarians" is a Big Fat Lie by a Lying Liar..

Source: Al Franken. ;~D
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Government Control and You(Anonymous User)


Do these people that write comments -- comments! -- that would make Proust blush really expect anyone to read them?


On the left, you have people frothing at the mouth about the Patriot act (which Democrats almost unanymously voted for incidentally), Guantanomo, wiretapping of foreign calls of suspected terrorists, etc.

On the right you have demonization of Nancy Pelosi, the assumption that upon having a slim majority that Democrats will pull us right out of Iraq, the UN, etc.


OMG! I'm a leftist? *swoon, faint*
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If they're stupid enough to vote for someone who'll take their freedoms away then the people deserve it. It's hardly authoritarian to do what the people want all the time. It can be cruel, but it's not authoritarian."


Since when do we get a chance to vote on any of it? Dunno how change is made there, but 9 out of 10 times here the changes made by activists are through lawyers in court. As I said, they don't want a vote on it, because they'd know they'd lose.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

All republicans like to point out that dems voted for the Patriot Act, which for the record was pushed through on the heels of 9/11 and everyone at that time was extremely scared of everything. Sadly, they also like to say we dont like wiretapping of terrorists, which i think if you look past their slanted and biased versions of the truth, you will see that no that is definatly not the case. We are against the president king george saying he can avoid the system of checks and balances put into place by the founding fathers. FISA gives the president 3 days to wiretap, however since 9/11 georgy has went before the fisa secret judge for 5000 + applications for wiretaps and was only turned down three times. Therefore this implies that he knows that the system is in place he just wants total autonomy to self destruct the constitution with no supervision.

How typical. Unable to give any real world examples, it's back to the usual moaning about the theoretical.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for your list of 1-12, hell if those regulations are so damn bad why has your REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN HOUSE, AND REPUBLICAN SENATE not done a damn thing about it? Ya'll have had power to do anything you want for what? almost 7 years now and all you have been able to do is come up with a stupid color code in which to manipulate and scare voters 2 weeks before elections? sheeeeeeeAT! It is laughable that with control of both parts of congress and a republican president they still try to blame us democrats for their lack of initiative. Hell i think instead of whining about the MINORITY party i would just complain about my party not getting off their asses and doing something other than award no bid contracts to Halliburton

You can bet I'm unhappy about the Republicans not doing anythign to try to reverse any of the 12 things on that list. It was, in fact, me complaining about the Republicans not doing those things that got Rush Limbaugh so annoyed with me last week. 

But that has nothing to do with the subject -- the authoritarian party is the Democratic party. Moreover, it is usually the Democrats who resort to NON-democratic means to get their way (the courts) rather than through elected representatives these days.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for your list of 1-12, hell if those regulations are so damn bad why has your REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN HOUSE, AND REPUBLICAN SENATE not done a damn thing about it?

IN a word: FILIBUSTER.  Government never shrinks, always grows.

As for your list of 12 Brad, I agree that all are democrat in concept, but depending upon state, some were done by republicans.  WHICH I know you have already written about. 

The only difference between the parties now is not in what is happening in the executive or Legislative, but what is happening in the Judicial.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is a super-spun article. on just a little bit of "fact checking" i found this...

As a home owner, I cannot build on my property wherever I want. There are zones on land that I own that I am not permitted to build on because of environment regulations that, if you saw the land in question (there may have been a swamp there a hundred years ago) it's ridiculous. I'm not saying I would build on that, but the government is definitely intruding on me in a very tangible way. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).

i assume you are referring to the EPA...nixon started the EPA. if you are just talking about local zoning ordinances, those can hardly be exclusively attributed to any party.


As a parent, I cannot just send my child to whatever public school I want. If my local school sucks, I can't just choose to send them somewhere else that has room for the child. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).

public school systems go back to greece.

Even though I am in perfect health and can easily provide health care for my family, 2.9% of my income is forcibly taken from me no matter how much I earn. (Authoritarian source: Democrats)

in my life, we take our health benefits from my wife's employer, the federal goverment. so in my job, i ALWAYS turn down benefits. no one forces anything out of my pay for health benefits. if she wanted to take no health benefits and "go on her own" the govt. doesn't stop that.



Similarly, 12.4% of my income is taken away for a forced retirement plan that I would be able to handle far better myself and so could most other people. (Authoritarian source: Democrats)

gonna rip on the most successful public system ever established by any goverment? i 100% disagree with this...i'm gonna be writing on Soc. sec. after the election, so i'll save my comments for that.


As an employer, OSHA can tell me how my office should be furnished -- from chairs to lighting. (Authoritarian source: Democrats

OSHA was started by Nixon. The early 'groundwork" began post wwII during Ike's admin. it developed thru kennedy and johnson.


As a student, I cannot be certain that I will be accepted at a major public university based on merit if my skin color is not favored by the government (Authoritarian source: Democrats).

the roots of affirmative action do have their roots in the democratic party. and they have, in the past, served the people well, imho, in "leveling the playing field." i do believe these laws need to be re-examined periodically, and probably should be again, soon.

If you have conservative views and speak at a major university, you can be expected to be assaulted verbally (or violently) by left-wing protesters. There are 0 documented incidents for the reverse -- Michael Moore, and other left wingers have never been physically assaulted or shouted down at a major university they've spoken at.

this is a lie. 1 minute of googling showed conservative students acted this way during a commencement address in 2001 when the speaker voiced concerns about civil liberty violations and military tribunals et al,,,

News Publisher Booed During Speech
AP ^ | December 16, 2001 | Associated Press


News Publisher Booed During Speech
By Associated Press
December 16, 2001, 4:14 PM EST


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A newspaper publisher's commencement speech was drowned out by hecklers when she mentioned threats to civil liberties posed by the federal government's investigation of the terrorist attacks.

Janis Besler Heaphy, president and publisher of The Sacramento Bee, was delivering the midyear graduation address Saturday to about 17,000 people at California State University in Sacramento.

When Heaphy raised questions about racial profiling, limits on civil rights and the establishment of military tribunals, the audience interrupted by clapping and stomping their feet for five minutes.

University President Don Gerth tried to quiet the audience, but Heaphy stopped speaking after more loud heckling erupted.

Heaphy told The Sacramento Bee afterward that the hecklers were merely blaming the messenger.

"This was a message about civil liberties and our acceptance of differing points of view in American society," she said. "It's a message that needs to continue to be heard."

Gerth blamed the interruption on students' family members and friends and said some students apologized to Heaphy after the ceremony.

"Our students have a right to hear our speaker," Gerth said. "It is a day I will never forget. I am not proud of it."

Heaphy's speech will be posted in its entirety Monday on the university's Web site, Gerth said.

Heaphy said she plans to continue to voice her concerns about potential civil liberties violations.

As an employer, I cannot hire or fire people as I please. Any form of discrimination (real or imagined) is strictly forbidden (Authoritarian source: Democrats).

i live in a right to work state. that specifically means someone can hire and fire as they please. what they can't do is discriminate purposefully. in other words, you can fire someone "for no reason." other than you want a change to take place. what you can't do is fire someone cause they are a minority, or a woman etc...

i'm not saying i agree with every discrimination and AA law out there, but your painting of it is skewed and oversimplistic.

When I go to the mall on a cold rainy day with my infant daughter, I have to park further back from the store because the store was required by the government to provide several handicap parking spaces (usually unused). (Authoritarian source: Democrats)

1st, a lot of handcap and disability laws are derived from state laws, of various parties. the federal "americans with disabilities act" was signed by bush 41.

When I build an office, I am forced to build bathrooms of an extra large capacity in order to fit potentially handicap people even if my business is not a retail business (Authoritarian source: Democrats).

again, talk to bush 41 on this.

When I ride a motorcycle, I am required to wear a helmet in Michigan. (Authoritarian source: Democrats). When I drive a car, I am required to wear a seat belt. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).

helmet and seat belt laws have been proven to save lives and reduce injuries. sure , you have the right to be a moron if you want in theory, but in the real world, your unsafe behavior can directly affect me in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher medical insurance costs, etc...and again, these laws are usually state laws, which have been pased by both parties.


i'm sorry, i don't agree with your premises or conclusions.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is there anything more authoritarian than socialism?


Try fascism.

I have met a great many socialists who were total anarchists and who rejected the very notion of "private property" as too authoritarian. I disagree with these people, but I cannot claim that I know of nothing more authoritarian. My own political opinions are more authoritarian, for one thing.



some were done by republicans


Very good point. I very much hope that Republicans and Democrats agree on a few more sensible laws, no matter how authoritarian they are. But I guess Brad's point was not so much that the laws are right or wrong but that Democrats are not generally opposed to authoritarianism.



Republicans may not be authoritarian in contrast to Democrats, but they sure are in contrast to Libertarians.


I have met many Libertarians on the net and I cannot agree. Libertarians are VERY authoritarian when it comes to how they wish their particular opinions should be enforced. I cannot imagine living in a more authoritarian state than one that would actually enforce property claims like some Libertarians want them enforced (and legalised). Republicans and Democrats are anarchists compared to some of those dudes.

The most non-authoritarian people I have personally met were socialists and the most sensible were conservatives. On the net the most non-authoritarian people I have met were also socialists. Among those advocating authoritarian systems I found were mostly socialists, many Muslims, some (American) Christians, and, really taking the cake, self-proclaimed Libertarians who wanted their property claims very strictly enforced without mercy, who invented all sorts of "rights" for themselves, and who didn't allow for any doubting whatsoever of their philosophy, claiming that it is "natural law" (which is the same as, but less romantic than "G-d's law").

If that last group ran the government, you bet you'd find an authoritarian system worse than socialism.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

i'm sorry, i don't agree with your premises or conclusions.

Sean, you simply aren't "getting it".  Did you bother to read the entire article?

Here's the part at the end you apparently ignored:

Now, you can read this list and say "Well these laws are good for us" or that they're good things. That's totally irrelevant.  Authoritarianism doesn't mean "evil horrible" control by the government, it just means government that dictates the "proper" way for people to live their lives.

Your argument basically is that those laws are good laws. You're free to feel that way.  But it's totally irrelevant whether they're for our own good or not. It is still the government telling us how we have to live.  If anyone needs to read a book like Atlas Shrugged it's you.

The other thing - presidents don't make laws. Do you understand this? Legislatures do.  If you go back and look at the AWDA, OSHA, and other laws you'll find that their base of support came from the Democrats.  It would be like you arguing that Democrats favor the elimination of welfare because Clinton signed the welfare reform act.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Republican party is largely an Authoritarian party nowadays. The consistent mantra from the WH is that they know what is good on the War On Terror, and everyone else should trust them. No oversight. This is the very definition of Authoritarianism.

See Warrantless Wiretapping - Republicans argue that no oversight is needed. War in Iraq? No oversight. Spying on the Internet? No oversight, nope. Torture? President gets to decide, no oversight.

I mean, Oversight is a CONSERVATIVE position! What the hell happened to the Republican idea that it doesn't hurt to have someone watching the books of an operation?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Republican party is largely an Authoritarian party nowadays.

Brad notes that Sean missed part of the article.  Apparently you missed part as well.  Re-read this part:

Re-adjust your perspective and ask how the government is interfering with your life or the life of anyone you know (or even take an extra degree of seperation). Not theoretical interference but tangible, real world, intrusion.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
basically brad, i read what you wrote as more of a democrats are more authoritarian than republicans. yes you do cover your ass with statements like what you self quoted above. i think you didn't get what i was responding to. your article was slanted despite the qualifiers.

the point i was making is that neither party has any exclusives on messing with rights in various forms in the past. personally, i don't think all the laws mentioned by you above are good, nor are they all bad. i think these questions and the histories of these various laws are more complex than you make them to be. to pin much of that solely on the democrats was simply innacurate.

we are probably not far off from each other, but per usual, we tend to read the worst in each other's writings, lol...but we both have a mutual history of that...anyway...at least you have an example of a liberal speaker being booed and whatnot...lol

have a great day brad:) thanks for the opportunity to clarify a lil.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
basically brad, i read what you wrote as more of a democrats are more authoritarian than republicans. yes you do cover your ass with statements like what you self quoted above. i think you didn't get what i was responding to. your article was slanted despite the qualifiers.

the point i was making is that neither party has any exclusives on messing with rights in various forms in the past. personally, i don't think all the laws mentioned by you above are good, nor are they all bad. i think these questions and the histories of these various laws are more complex than you make them to be. to pin much of that solely on the democrats was simply innacurate.

we are probably not far off from each other, but per usual, we tend to read the worst in each other's writings, lol...but we both have a mutual history of that...anyway...at least you have an example of a liberal speaker being booed and whatnot...lol

have a great day brad:) thanks for the opportunity to clarify a lil.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, my government is spending a huge amount of my money on wars I don't support, with no oversight of how the money is being spent. I figure that I've been charged thousands and thousands of dollars in Taxes in order to pay for a staggering amount of waste. That's a real-world example of authoritarianism.

I've been told that disagreeing with the state - with the war currently being proscuted by the state - is a form of agreeing with the enemy. That I'm on the side of the terrorists for doing so. That sure seems to be authoritiarian to me.

My internet communications are currently being tapped and analyzed - and so are yours. That's a real-world example of authoritarianism.

I could go on, but why bother? You know as well as I that the attitude that oversight is not neccessary is a breeding ground for corruption. The GOP has emphasized 'moral values' to the point where many voters actually believe that those who run the GOP, actually have some sort of moral advantage over others. I think it is pretty clear that they do not, and yet, they are deffered to as if their judgement is better than that of others. It's a mixture of Authoritarianism and Cult of Personality.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, my government is spending a huge amount of my money on wars I don't support, with no oversight of how the money is being spent. I figure that I've been charged thousands and thousands of dollars in Taxes in order to pay for a staggering amount of waste. That's a real-world example of authoritarianism.

Huh?  So basically you're saying that paying taxes is authoritarian?

I didn't even list income taxes as authoritarian (despite the fact that most of those income taxes go to programs insisted by liberals that provide little to no benefit to the person who paid the taxes).

Sean, others: If you don't know what authoritarian means, then don't participate. I'm one step away from blocking you from my articles if you can't be bothered to read the articles.

The argument Al Franken made was that it's Republicans that are authoritarian (as opposed to the Democrats).

All we hear from the left are theoretical or potential cases where an individual American might have their freedoms abused (as opposed to say FDR who simply locked up thousands of Japanese Americans but if Bush wants to wire trap foreign calls from suspected terrorists, oh no).

But when you sit down and list TANGIBLE (that means things that actually affect real people every day) authoritarian government policies, it's consistently policies pushed through by Democrats.

Things that the government forces at gun point on to its citizens is authoritarian. It doesn't matter if you think big brother is doing a good job or not. 

Maybe YOU need a mommy to tell you to save 12.4% of your income for retirement. I don't. I'm a functioning adult capable of investing my own money.

Maybe YOU need the government to tell you which specific school your child MUST go to (unless you want to opt out entirely in which your tax dollars are totally wasted). I don't. I can make that decision a lot better.  In Greece, btw, parents can send their child to any public school as long as it has room (the case is true in nearly every European country).

and so on.  It doesn't matter whether YOU or I agree on whether mommy government is doing a good job or not. The point is that mommy is taking our rights away little by little wiht this kind of thing. When you lose a choice as an individual, you lose a bit of your freedom. And time and time again it's been the left inserting more power to mommy.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Without a source link it is hard to know what Al Franken was talking about. But it is probable it was in reference to John W. Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience in which is discussed the Right-Wing Authoritarian.

"Right-Wing Authoritarian" is a general term coined to apply to people who both score high on the Authoritarian Personality scale and are also right-wing in their political beliefs. The science doesn't show, nor does Dean (nor Al Franken, I'd wager) claim, that all Republicans are authoritarian personality types. But in the United States today, if you _do have_ an authoritarian personality, the odds are high that you are a republican.

While in the past evil poiltical structures, such as fascism and communism, have been used by authoritarian leaders to control authoritarian followers, today it is the Republican party that is appealing--in both ways--to the true lowest common denominator of the politically aware.

I think the use of "authoritarian" in the original post is a bit loose. Authoritarianism, even if used to refer to a political ideology or form of government, is more than "do what we say." A democratic government, for example, might elect representatives who feel it is the least we can do as a society to let cripples park close to the door. The difference is, in an authoritarian government--as opposed to a parking ticket--you would get hauled off to confinement without you being told why or your family where.

Authoritarianism is a much deeper evil than the--more libertarian than republican--quibbles in the original post. It involves not just "do what we say", but "believe what we say". In a democratic society you can blog about how you like the wind to blow through your hair when you ride your motorcycle and how the helmet law sucks. In an authoritarian society such dissent would be very frowned upon, to understate it.

Whether Franken was refering to the authoritarian personality or the authoritarianism ideology, when the terms are used strictly, they are more applicable to republican leaders, a large subset of republican constituents, and the republican strategy than to democrats. And studies have repeatedly correlated the authoritarian personality type with right-wing politics.

I recommend Conservatives Without Conscience highly to anyone interested in the politics of today. The preface alone is very informative. You can get it at your local library.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Try fascism."


Socialists are just fascists who can't admit it. In the end they want to impose their standard of equity and idealism against the will of their fellow man. The fact that they shroud it in good intentions doesn't make it any less fascist.

If you doubt me, run through a list of notable socialist nations in the last 100 years or so. They either start leaning toward democratic principles, or the fascists just come out of the closet.

"But in the United States today, if you _do have_ an authoritarian personality, the odds are high that you are a republican."


I don't see how you can believe that. People try to foist that on conservatives because they resist change, but in the end who is trying to force change on the world? Just because lefty hippy types have a laissez faire attitude concerning sex and drugs doesn't mean that shoving their ideals down other people's throats isn't authoritarian.

What SConn1 and others are blind to is it is just as authoritarian to tell people they aren't allowed to make the laws they want. Liberty cuts both ways. When the majority want to pass a law, say, limiting drug use, but a vocal, authoritarian minority prevents them, what's the difference?

Libertarians are hypocrites most of the time. They spend a lot of time spouting ideals, but in the end they are the ones shoving their subjective ideas about what is untouchable down our throats. Oddly, to not be authoritarian, Libertarians spend a hell of a lot of time telling us what we aren't allowed to do...