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 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:

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 2)

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 23, 2006

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?

Dr Guy

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

sean conners

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

sean conners

on Oct 23, 2006

sean conners

on Oct 23, 2006

huh,,,guess i'm not lgged in,,,just got power surged ,,,lol

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

Draginol

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

rabidrobot

on Oct 23, 2006

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.

bakerstreet

on Oct 24, 2006

"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...

Force And Fraud

on Oct 24, 2006

Spam from IP address 64.27.0.166

Leauki

on Oct 24, 2006

You must have met different socialists than I. Perhaps you have simply not met enough different people?

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.

None of the socialists I knew ever ran a country. And a dictator calling his policies "socialism" is just about as representative for socialism as a dictator who calls his policies "anarchy" is representative for anarchism.

bakerstreet

on Oct 24, 2006

"You must have met different socialists than I. Perhaps you have simply not met enough different people?"

No... I think I've met enough of them. Maybe you haven't? Odd argument.

"None of the socialists I knew ever ran a country. And a dictator calling his policies "socialism" is just about as representative for socialism as a dictator who calls his policies "anarchy" is representative for anarchism."

Ah, convenient. So anytime socialism fails you can claim it wasn't REALLY socialism. lol. Man, this socialism must be as rare as an honest politician... (literally). Pipe dreams. A party can run a fascist government as easily as an individual.

If you look at Leftist ideology closely, you'll see that it just wraps back around and ends up on the Right. In order to make socialism work you have to be so oppressive that you become a fascist.

Leauki

on Oct 24, 2006

No... I think I've met enough of them [socialists]. Maybe you haven't? Odd argument.

Perhaps. But then I don't know why you even made it. I stand by what I said. I have met many socialists who are a lot less authoritarian than I and they certainly did not resemble fascists in any way. There is no "argument" you can possibly throw at me that would convince me that my old friends are secretly fascists. I really think that you simply don't know enough people, if you think that everyone is a fascist. Or perhaps you know the wrong people.

I have shared a house with socialists. I have grown up in a family that, like ALL FAMILIES, functioned in a socialist way (if your family didn't, you have my sympathy). Neither my parents nor my former flat mates are fascists, thank you very much.

I doubt that you have ever met many socialists in real life.

I'll give you an example.

Our house in the late 1990s had a small front garden. Nobody used it for anything. One of my flat mates, who had an interest in gardening, decided to make it look a bit nice. And he was good at that (he works as a gardener in England now).

A few days after he finished work on it, somebody accidentally or with intent, I do not know, destroyed the garden.

My flat mate didn't mind. When I proposed that he had a right to be angry because his work was destroyed, he argued that it didn't matter, as the land was everybody's to use as they saw fit and that he could simply do his work again if he wanted it done (and he did).

His attitude was clearly socialist. He saw the garden as the common property of the house's community. He was his own labour as his own but the results of his labour not as his personal property. He believed that the garden was in fact "owned" by everyone using it, not just the first person to improve it. He was a socialist. I'm not sure if he still is, I only see him once a year or so, but he is still as nice to everyone as he was back then.

Tell me exactly how his attitude is fascist in any way.

Come on, you made the allegation.

It boils down to you having to call my friend a liar, doesn't it? That would be the argument, I suppose.

Do I buy it? No.

And once you start making exceptions to your above-stated belief, you open the flood gates. It would be up to you now to show how one socialist is honest while others are secret fascists. And then you would have to show how Stalin and my friend are both socialists, while only one of them is only a fascist. And then you would have to show how the qualities that made Stalin a fascist are the same qualities that, inherent in every socialist, did not cause my friend to become the same.

Very difficult case you would have to make there.

This is not about claims. Your argument was that a system that calls itself socialist must be socialist. It's up to you to prove that. Proof by generalisation is not proof at all. Tell me exactly how Stalinism followed the principle of communal ownership and how Stalinism was not about one guy controlling everything.

Tell me how Stalin could never ever have been a Libertarian who simply happened to claim ownership of all the land in the Soviet Union.

If you look at Leftist ideology closely, you'll see that it just wraps back around and ends up on the Right. In order to make socialism work you have to be so oppressive that you become a fascist.

And if you look at any idology closely you'll see that no ideology can be enforced without resorting to authoritarianism. That is probably what you see when some government tries to enforce socialism and what socialists see when some government tries to enforce any other system.

Incidentally, my flatmates and I treat the food in our fridge as communal property. That's quite socialist indeed but we have never been fascists about it. (We wouldn't know how.)

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 24, 2006

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.

Many people apparently do, for they save nothing. And they don't go away when they run out of money; they either starve to death in mass numbers, or provide quite the drag on younger generations. SS alleviates these problems at a relatively low cost to society.

Brad Wardell

on Oct 24, 2006

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.

That's nonsense. In general, conservatives simply want the government out of our lives. Which things are you, on a day to day basis, forced to (or not to) do at the point of a gun based on Republican led policies? The only one I can think of would be drug usage.

When you can come up with a list of real world -- TANGIBLE things that Republicans are doing that affect you and your family on a day to day basis that's anywhere near the list I provided, then talk to me about appealing to the lowest common denominator. Because it's not Republicans that run around screaming "Tax cuts for the WEALTHY!!!1" as if the poor have some right to the money earned by others.

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!