Who is the party of authoritarians?

A look at the authoritarian polices of Democrats and Republicans

Published on October 21, 2006 By Brad Wardell In Politics

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 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:

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

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.

Comments (Page 1)

bakerstreet

on Oct 21, 2006

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.

sad really really sad.....

on Oct 21, 2006

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

cactoblasta

on Oct 21, 2006

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.

bakerstreet

on Oct 22, 2006

"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..."

cactoblasta

on Oct 22, 2006

"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.

Noumenon

on Oct 22, 2006

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.

ParaTed2k

on Oct 22, 2006

First sign that the whole "Party of Authoritarians" is a Big Fat Lie by a Lying Liar..

Source: Al Franken. ;~D

Gene Nash

on Oct 22, 2006

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*

bakerstreet

on Oct 22, 2006

"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.

Brad Wardell

on Oct 22, 2006

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.

Brad Wardell

on Oct 22, 2006

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.

Dr Guy

on Oct 22, 2006

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.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

Leauki

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

Brad Wardell

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!