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 3)

Brad Wardell

on Oct 24, 2006

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

Just to butt in here:

Most of the socialists I've met aren't very authoritarian. It's the policies they want that become authoritarian. I can't imagine anything more authoritarian than someone, at the point of a gun, confiscating my property, that I earned, to hand it over to someone else, who did nothing to earn it.

Brad Wardell

on Oct 24, 2006

-Regarding needing a mommy in the form of SS -- 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.

Then let people opt out. If the people who opt out run out of money, well, natural selection is a cruel but necessary process.

Social Security annoys me a lot less than Medicare because Social Security at least has a cap at $90,000. Medicare does not. If someone makes a million dollars in a given year, they pay $29,000 for Medicare. That $29,000 could have been invested in a simple money market account at 4% annual interest and been a 6 figure income by the time they're eligible to collect Medicare. It would annoy me less if Medicare was capped -- but still be annoying. It's the principle of the matter. Taking property from one person to another at the point of a gun is stealing and that's what happens with that excess medicare. At least with SS they have the decency to hide their intent.

bakerstreet

on Oct 24, 2006

You flat mate wasn't socialist in anything you describe. His livlihood didn't rely on that usless little common area, nor did the health and welfare of his family. I love it when bleeding hearts talk socialism as if it is all bike paths and college hydroponics. If your friend was a socialist, then way down deep he was a fascist, because socialists insist society be forced into an unnatural state of pleasantness.

Honestly, it sounds more like your friend was a pacifist, not a socialist. What people outside of intellectual circles would call a 'wuss'. Socialism usually gets tired of being such, and eventually when someone stomps the garden they send the secret police to their house; it's inevitable.

You can't judge socialism by college common areas and "families". Real socialism is about imposing a set of very specific values on a society, and eventually it means limiting the success of a sizable percentage of your population. It means managing the workforce to ensure productivity and overseeing management.

In the end, it means taking things away from people by force. Period. Socialism is about government ownership of property and means of production. Buy yourself a dictionary and look it up. Eventually, it always means taking something someone earned away, leaving them worse off for their effort.

You prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what socialism even means, frankly. You've been brainwashed by quasi-liberal fluff to think that socialism is some sort of "attitude". It isn't. It is a system of economics and government that REQUIRES that people are limited and oppressed to ensure that society is just as safe, prosperous and happy for people who are either too lazy or stupid to do as well.

"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."

LMAO... urm, you've come to the conclusion that you can be socialist and Libertarian? Now you really HAVE shown your ignorance. Socialism requires socially imposed standards. Libertarianism is the exact opposite; it demands a lack of involvement in the affairs of business and private life.

P.S. just in case you haven't noticed, you are the one speaking in generalities. You are the one refusing to talk about socialism as a real defined thing and insist on talking about college gardens and "attitudes".

"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.)"

On the contrary, I HAVE talked to enough college socialists to know that you know EXACTLY how. I am absolutely positive that if someone abused your socialist order that you'd be able to come up with lots of ways to be a little fascist about it. Your inability to deal with the realities of your politics without becoming whiney about it is perfectly in sync with all the socialists I've know that couldn't tolerate any "wrong".

The difference is in college they whine and talk, and in government they exert oppressive power.

bakerstreet

on Oct 24, 2006

I just keep coming back to Andrew's arguments.

-Someone destroyed a garden someone made in a public area and the person didn't get angry.

-He and his roommates don't argue over the food in the refrigerator.

-Families function as "socialism".

Andrew doubts that I have met many socialists, but I can say that I have met plenty of socialists like Andrew. I've even met SOME that know what socialism really is. I've also seen college socialists finally snap when the new roommate double dips in his salsa for the 20th time and laughs their kind reminders off.

Had that been a government that snapped, someone would be reeducated. What Andrew is talking about is pacifism, or charity, or hippy-love conflict management. It has nothing to do with government ownership and control of property and the means of production in a society.

The reaction of people to having their peanut butter eaten isn't a good indicator of a society's reaction to socialism. Tell that same person that they can't live in the same comfort they are accustomed to in their old age because there are people who refused to work and must be fed. Tell people they can't give their kids the best they could otherwise afford because the government has to reallocate resources.

Then you'll see how people react to socialism.

cactoblasta

on Oct 24, 2006

[quote[]Then let people opt out. If the people who opt out run out of money, well, natural selection is a cruel but necessary process.

Desperate and dying citizens steal, cheat and fight over scraps. It happened after Katrina, it happened in the 10-year-war, it'll happen if you don't give them the bread and circuses they demand. It's really not a valid option to let natural selection take place; these discontents would be a safe harbour for terrorists, and that's hardly ideal. Better that everyone can be united in their preference for the government than the Islamists, who would offer charity if they were in power.

Socialism isn't going to fix the world, but a little bit of realpolitik wouldn't go astray.

Draginol

on Oct 24, 2006

Desperate and dying citizens steal, cheat and fight over scraps. It happened after Katrina, it happened in the 10-year-war, it'll happen if you don't give them the bread and circuses they demand. It's really not a valid option to let natural selection take place; these discontents would be a safe harbour for terrorists, and that's hardly ideal. Better that everyone can be united in their preference for the government than the Islamists, who would offer charity if they were in power.

Socialism isn't going to fix the world, but a little bit of realpolitik wouldn't go astray.

Yes, I can see it now, a crime wave of desperate senior citizens..

Look out! Grandpa's coming for you if he doesn't get his free pills and $200 a month from the guvment.

At some point, people have to take responsibility for their lives. If someone opted out of Social Security and ended up broke, that's a shame but it's their responsibility. If they decided to start to steal, law can deal with that as well.

The government's job is to protect our property. Not confiscate it to hand over to the stupid, lazy, or criminal.

cactoblasta

on Oct 24, 2006

Ah, okay, social security is only paid to old people in the US. It's confusing I tell you - anyone can get social security in Oz so long as they're not working. But you've got to admit there's something uniquely terrifying about a blue-rinser with a AK-47.

Dr Guy

on Oct 24, 2006

On the contrary, I HAVE talked to enough college socialists

You have talked to me! I was one back then. But then I got edumacated.

Lee1776

on Oct 24, 2006

I would agree with the statement most of the time, but reality gets in the way. Just as we continue to send aid to Africa year after year, we will be forced to pay for those who have wasted their money by opting out of SS and end up broke.

The American people are to soft hearted (or bleeding hearted) to let people get what they warranted upon themselves. I'm just looking at what will happen, and the American people are too soft to let a 90 year old woman lay on the sidewalk on a cold night. Even though she spent her retirement on what she thought was a day to day necessity at the time.

Just remember, humans are really not very reasonable half of the time and soft hearted the rest of the time.

Draginol

on Oct 24, 2006

Which brings us back to the problem at hand: Confiscating the property of one citizen at gun point to hand to the stupid, inept, or criminal.

IF Americans are soft hearted, and I think they are, then they will donate to charities. Eliminate social security and you would see private organizations spring up that people could donate to (I would).

See, that's the thing, we ARE a generous country. The government does not need to force us at gun point to take this money. When there's a tragedy, people give. I saw someone talk about Katrina earlier. And the fact is, billions and billions were given as aid (not counting volunteer worker time) to help the victims. Of course, it also ruined the economy down there in the process but the point is, Americans will spend the money to help other people - voluntarily.

But as a citizen, I should have the right to control my property -- my m oney in this case. Right now, we're forced to pay into the inept social security system. No choice. The government has the guns so they force us to pay them money "for the public good" of course.

bakerstreet

on Oct 25, 2006

Look at what Bill Gates and Malcolm Forbes and Ted Turner are doing. That's what Andrew and the rest imagine Socialism would be like. That's what Andrew's refrigerator was no doubt like. We have plenty, so there's no hangups with making sure we make life better for others when they don't have enough.

That isn't socialism, not by a long shot. That's charity, or a spirit of brotherhood or whatever. Socialism is when you institutionalize that fairness, and prevent people through government authority from doing anything else. That breeds MORE greed and hate, as evidenced in nations that made failed attempts at it on a large scale.

In the end, the question is, are you willing not just to do with less, but to actually do without for people who simply weren't as successful as you. Not the street urchins starving in the street, but people like me who just aren't motivated enough to be as successful as Brad.

Should Brad have to pay for my lack of motivation? Hell no. His children deserve what he worked to provide them with, and when he is old he should enjoy the comfort he made for himself, even if I have to live less comfortably. Taking part of that away so the rest of us can live in some sort of college communal refrigerator isn't ethically sound, it is a crime; it's oppression.

Lee1776

on Oct 25, 2006

I would like to continue with this chat but I will leave it like this:

THE GRASSHOPPER AND THE ANT

The Original Version:

The ant busts his butt in the withering heat all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The
grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and drinks and dances
and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well
fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in
the cold.

The Liberal Version:

It starts out the same, but when winter comes, the shivering
grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the
ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are
cold and starving. CBS, NBC and ABC show up and provide pictures
of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his
comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that,
in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to
suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National
Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the
ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is
the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog
appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when
he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green." Later, Barbara Streisand
makes a double platinum recording of the song and banks another
six million dollars.

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the
CBS Evening News and tell a very concerned Dan Rather that they
will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been
denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly
during the Reagan summers, or as Bill refers to it, the "
Temperatures of the 80's". Bill reports he is sending a new
draft Affirmative Discrimination Bill to the Senate and House to
codify Government retaliation against sexual harassment and
discrimination perpetrated by ants.

Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism
Act", RETROACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is
fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs
and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home
is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm
to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the
ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that
Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare moms who can
only hear cases on Thursday afternoon between 1:30 and 3:00 PM
when there are no talk shows scheduled. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last
bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in which
just happens to be the ant's old house crumbles around him since
he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in
the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling
most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing
before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a
new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.

The Ants will always be there.

If prior retirement planning, charity organizations and kind hearts can help all those in need, then why did we have FDR in the 1930's?

drmiler

on Oct 25, 2006

US Army Announces Readiness for Total Military Takeover Of U

October 21, 2006

Russian Intelligence Analysts are reporting today that final steps towards a full Military Dictatorship of the United States have been taken with the US Army announcing USARNORTH has now reached ‘full operational capacity’ and is now ready to:

“Execute homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions”, and “Conduct the Army-to-Army portion of the theater cooperation mission with Canada and Mexico”.

What a crock of crap! Give me your address and I'll send you a new tinfoil hat for X-mas!

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!