CDZ America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

[Dogmaphobe]

Here we have some posters flailing about looking for those authorritarians when all they really need to do is walk into their bathrooms and look directly ahead at a spot right above their sink.

Authoritarianism isn't a producct of the the right. It isn't a product of the nation state. It is simply an attitude in governance characterized by denying those being governed the ability to make decisions for themselves, seeking to regulate and control the population in such a way they have no recourse but to obey, and concentrates power in the hands of select individuals and groups. It is "do what we say.....OR ELSE".

Those who seek the imposition of a globalist order are the actual authoritarians in today's political climate. THey seek to strip the individual of the right to determine their own fate. They seek to organize control away from the local or even nation state level and place it in the hands of those who cannot even be identified. They wish to curtail speech, limit assmebly and mandate compliance in all aspects of life. They use methods to punish those who don't comply by "cancelling" them, shaming them, ostracizing them and eventually prevent them from havig any participation in the political process.

Sometimes authoritarian propgandists arrive at messageboards whipping up great frothy word merengues designed to fool people into believing that all those who oppose their authoritarianism are actually the authoritarians and all the various political safeguards against authoritarianism are actually forms thereof. Don't believe them. The merengue they whip into such froth is really quite empty once you actually bite into it, as is designed to impress, but belies an intent to subvert rather than communicate.

 

[blackhawk]

I think some of you should go live under the rule of an actual authoritarian for a year so you can find out what one actually is some of you seem to think anyone who has an idea or viewpoint different than you is an authoritarian. Just curious how many see some of the actions taken by Governors Newsome, Cuomo, and Whitmore as authoritarian? Some in the incoming Biden administration are talking about mandatory gun buy backs if they should try and do that is that the act of an authoritarian and would you support it? Rather some see someone as an authoritarian seems to depend a lot on if they have the letter R or D next to their name.

 

[Donald H]

Nobody picked up on a point I made earlier that I hoped would catch the attention of liberals:

Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically.

This conclusion may be controversial. But it seems to me that if the Democrats want to remain a ruling party, or even a competitive one, they need to change their priorities, their messaging, and their real policies in a number of important ways. I haven’t any expectations that the professional “strategists” in the DNC have any idea of how they might do that, or any real interest in change. Unfortunately, nobody in the “progressive” wing of the party, nobody in the “left,” seems to have the ability, savvy or even a program to change the party either.

The way I see it Tom is that both parties are hooked into being blackmailed by big money. When the Dem party pushed Biden to the top, they were protecting their establishment interests and compromising their progressive principles. They were probably right that they couldn't win with Bernie or one of the other candidates that hadn't been completely bought off.

So you could be right about the Dem strategists not having any real interest in change. There's the reason why they would fear meaningful change as a losing proposition.

I would like to talk to you about 'socially' responsible capitalism but you haven't given any indication that you are interested. Maybe the best way to indicate your priorities would be to tell us what priorities the Dem party are neglecting so your schtick becomes more obvious.

So far I can only agree with you that the DNC is going to have to make it known just what they represent, but no indication from you on what you think they should represent.

As for the right or the GOP? The rightist agenda seems to be ambiguos to me now, at least in Canada and I suspect it would be the same in the US. But that's more than we need on our plates at the moment. If you want an explanation for the latter, just ask.

 

[Donald H]

China's aggression to Hong Kong and their military buildup tells me that we can't just play nice and they will leave us alone.

Everything you say is with the intent of pushing your POV, and so you show no interest in learning what others have to say. I won't try to address anything more than one of your questions.

Could you explain what a nation's power has to do with nationalism, and why it makes nationalism a bad thing.

Nationalism is a bad thing when it means 'aggression' against other countries. That alone deserves at least a full chapter in which to reply.

Maybe Tom will cater to your priorities?

 

[DustyInfinity]

China's aggression to Hong Kong and their military buildup tells me that we can't just play nice and they will leave us alone.

Everything you say is with the intent of pushing your POV, and so you show no interest in learning what others have to say. I won't try to address anything more than one of your questions.

Could you explain what a nation's power has to do with nationalism, and why it makes nationalism a bad thing.

Nationalism is a bad thing when it means 'aggression' against other countries. That alone deserves at least a full chapter in which to reply.

Maybe Tom will cater to your priorities?

Well thanks for not engaging, I guess. Does independence in any form become an act of aggression for those not willing to give up autonomy? As for China, my POV is irrelevant. Their aggression is not subjective, and should be recognized by all observers.

 

[DrLove]

You and I SHOULD worry about Authoritarian tendencies in our govt, but I'm quite sure that both YOU and the Atlantic dont share my zeal for liberty and freedom. WANNABEE Authoritarians are all around us.. The kind that make a public speech by teleconference from a Resort in Mehico while telling his CONSTITUENTS to "STAY AT HOME" -- without even flinching or smurking..

And neither you or the Atlantic have given me ANY scary facts or evidence of Trump's "authoritarian" bent that resonate with me. I'm more concerned about a Biden Admin taking POWER FROM THE STATES to run/choose their Covid intervention schemes, then the laissez faire approach where Trump let the many states run/chose their own ways. We LEARNED A LOT about "authoritarianism" from that brilliant experiment -- didn't we?

If ya want to discuss nightmare scenarios about Authoritarianism with folks who AREN'T big emotional readers of The Atlantic -- you're gonna have to allow that the THREAT is not Trump per se. And that it can come quickly from "the other side" as well.

You'll see more attacks on ACTUAL freedoms and liberties in the next 4 years WITHOUT Trump.. We can bet on that..

The Atlantic has a clean fact check record and is BARELY center left. But you're attempt to paint them as extreme is duly noted.

• Overall, we rate The Atlantic Left-Center Biased due to editorial positions and High for factual reporting based on excellent sourcing of information and a clean fact check record.

 

[Donald H]

China's aggression to Hong Kong and their military buildup tells me that we can't just play nice and they will leave us alone.

Everything you say is with the intent of pushing your POV, and so you show no interest in learning what others have to say. I won't try to address anything more than one of your questions.

Could you explain what a nation's power has to do with nationalism, and why it makes nationalism a bad thing.

Nationalism is a bad thing when it means 'aggression' against other countries. That alone deserves at least a full chapter in which to reply.

Maybe Tom will cater to your priorities?

Well thanks for not engaging, I guess. Does independence in any form become an act of aggression for those not willing to give up autonomy? As for China, my POV is irrelevant. Their aggression is not subjective, and should be recognized by all observers.

You're suggesting that you're not willing to give up autonomy to China? So how is China attempting to take away your autonomy?

China's aggression against H.K. isn't really aggression. It's China expressing their need for 'socially responsible' government in all parts of their country. They obviously believe that hoarding wealth can't be tolerated in a country of more than 1 1/2 billion people.

Right or wrong in your opinion, that's something on which you may want to comment. And you can also equate that situation to the current situation in your own country.

Can a democracy continue to function in this 21st. century when 3 top billionaires hold the equivalent wealth as is held by the poorest 50% in America?

I haven't either promoted or opposed what China is doing in H.K. Just stating the facts on how China is handling the problem is enough for now. I've afforded you the courtesy of an answer, even though it's completely skipping over any real discussion on your supposed autonomy being stolen, taken away, whatever you're claiming?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I think I see the problem, here.

You haven't the foggiest, fucking clue what the word "authoritarian" even means.

Agreed.

Leftists in Venezuela who screamed and fought for Chavez and socialism had no clue what authoritarianism meant......

But they sure do know what going hungry means now that they got what they wanted

 

[Donald H]

I think I see the problem, here.

You haven't the foggiest, fucking clue what the word "authoritarian" even means.

Agreed.

Leftists in Venezuela who screamed and fought for Chavez and socialism had no clue what authoritarianism meant......

But they sure as hell know what going hungry means now that they got what they wanted

The people of Venezuela obviously believe that going hungry is the price they have to pay for upholding their cause of choosing their leaders and their style of government.

The people of Cuba did the same and after many years of hardship and suffering they are now prospering more than any other banana Republic in the world, thanks to China's free and fair trade policy.

 

[Indeependent]

I defend the basic view of this article. If you disagree, explain why. I am especially interested in debating liberal views, but of course all are welcome to express their opinions.

Trump was ineffective ... A future strongman won’t be...

Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world.... But there’s one key difference between Trump and everyone else.... The others are all talented politicians who win elections again and again....

Trump is not good at his job. He doesn’t even seem to like it much. He is too undisciplined and thin-skinned to be effective at politics over a sustained period, which involves winning repeated elections....

The situation is ... perfect ... for a talented politician to run on Trumpism in 2024. A person without the eager Twitter fingers and greedy hotel chains, someone with a penchant for governing rather than golf. An individual who does not irritate everyone who doesn’t already like him.... Someone who isn’t on tape boasting about assaulting women, and who says the right things about military veterans. Someone who can send appropriate condolences about senators who die, instead of angering their state’s voters, as Trump did, perhaps to his detriment, in Arizona. A norm-subverting strongman who can create a durable majority and keep his coalition together to win more elections....

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism — without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent — is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president.

America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

I knew he was inept, knew nothing of government, and of bad character before 2016 election and did not vote for him, but feared Hillary could turn out to be the worst of the two, as she was smart, knew government well, had all the inside connections, was an even better liar than he and equally out for herself. I am thankful, we will probably never know which one truly had the potential to be worse for the country. Just my opinion.

Yeah, because 99% of the assholes in Congress have a clue as to how to run a City, State or Nation.

 

[White 6]

I defend the basic view of this article. If you disagree, explain why. I am especially interested in debating liberal views, but of course all are welcome to express their opinions.

Trump was ineffective ... A future strongman won’t be...

Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world.... But there’s one key difference between Trump and everyone else.... The others are all talented politicians who win elections again and again....

Trump is not good at his job. He doesn’t even seem to like it much. He is too undisciplined and thin-skinned to be effective at politics over a sustained period, which involves winning repeated elections....

The situation is ... perfect ... for a talented politician to run on Trumpism in 2024. A person without the eager Twitter fingers and greedy hotel chains, someone with a penchant for governing rather than golf. An individual who does not irritate everyone who doesn’t already like him.... Someone who isn’t on tape boasting about assaulting women, and who says the right things about military veterans. Someone who can send appropriate condolences about senators who die, instead of angering their state’s voters, as Trump did, perhaps to his detriment, in Arizona. A norm-subverting strongman who can create a durable majority and keep his coalition together to win more elections....

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism — without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent — is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president.

America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

I knew he was inept, knew nothing of government, and of bad character before 2016 election and did not vote for him, but feared Hillary could turn out to be the worst of the two, as she was smart, knew government well, had all the inside connections, was an even better liar than he and equally out for herself. I am thankful, we will probably never know which one truly had the potential to be worse for the country. Just my opinion.

Yeah, because 99% of the assholes in Congress have a clue as to how to run a City, State or Nation.

That is why they meet in congress to guide the country not as singular rulers. The cities should be left to the voters of those city people to get and give no more than is required or tolerated in those cities.

 

[HenryBHough]

In many American political subdivisions (cities, counties, towns) authoritarian rule is now the norm. Does anyone seriously believe any of the neo Little Hitlers will willingly give up their whips?

Get used to it.

 

[Donald H]

In many American political subdivisions (cities, counties, towns) authoritarian rule is now the norm. Does anyone seriously believe any of the neo Little Hitlers will willingly give up their whips?

Get used to it.

Can you provide an explanation of the authoritarian rule you are suggesting?

 

[HenryBHough]

Can you provide an explanation of the authoritarian rule you are suggesting?

This one time I'll waive my normal link fee:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article247753590.html

(caution, paywall that usually permits ONE free look)

 

[task0778]

I defend the basic view of this article. If you disagree, explain why. I am especially interested in debating liberal views, but of course all are welcome to express their opinions.

Trump was ineffective ... A future strongman won’t be...

Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world.... But there’s one key difference between Trump and everyone else.... The others are all talented politicians who win elections again and again....

Trump is not good at his job. He doesn’t even seem to like it much. He is too undisciplined and thin-skinned to be effective at politics over a sustained period, which involves winning repeated elections....

The situation is ... perfect ... for a talented politician to run on Trumpism in 2024. A person without the eager Twitter fingers and greedy hotel chains, someone with a penchant for governing rather than golf. An individual who does not irritate everyone who doesn’t already like him.... Someone who isn’t on tape boasting about assaulting women, and who says the right things about military veterans. Someone who can send appropriate condolences about senators who die, instead of angering their state’s voters, as Trump did, perhaps to his detriment, in Arizona. A norm-subverting strongman who can create a durable majority and keep his coalition together to win more elections....

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism — without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent — is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president.

America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

I think this is nonsense, Trump was very effective, moreso than his predecessors were or Biden will be. The economy was doing very well until the Coronavirus hit, which contrary to popular democrat opinions was not his fault. Ditto his foreign policy, for the most part. Trump was and is a total asshole, but IMHO he has certainly been more effective than Obama ever was.

 

[Donald H]

Can you provide an explanation of the authoritarian rule you are suggesting?

This one time I'll waive my normal link fee:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article247753590.html

(caution, paywall that usually permits ONE free look)

There's little doubt that's taking action that appears to be authoritarian, but is it motivated for that reason or is it sincerely considered as a necessary precaution.

I think the answer lies in whether or not the offender was potentially harming others. As a 'for instance', smoking in a public place could be considered as a similar action against a person.

I'm not siding for or against the issue, just acknowledging your opinion.

 

[HenryBHough]

There's little doubt that's taking action that appears to be authoritarian, but is it motivated for that reason or is it sincerely considered as a necessary precaution.

I think the answer lies in whether or not the offender was potentially harming others. As a 'for instance', smoking in a public place could be considered as a similar action against a person.

I'm not siding for or against the issue, just acknowledging your opinion.

The most common argument for authoritarians is:

"Remember, it's for your own good"

Whether it or not.

 

[Donald H]

There's little doubt that's taking action that appears to be authoritarian, but is it motivated for that reason or is it sincerely considered as a necessary precaution.

I think the answer lies in whether or not the offender was potentially harming others. As a 'for instance', smoking in a public place could be considered as a similar action against a person.

I'm not siding for or against the issue, just acknowledging your opinion.

The most common argument for authoritarians is:

"Remember, it's for your own good"

Whether it or not.

Most aren't concerned with your 'good' in the least. Most are concerned with their own 'good' and some aren't concerned at all. They feign concern.

Does the death rate that's 3 thousand a day justify the authoritarian actions to which you object? Canada's is now over a hundred a day and that's a third of your death rate per capita. I'm willing to wear the mask. I take it you aren't.

It's not my place to tell you one way or the other.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wearing a mask in public places like shops is a prudent personal choice. Being forced to wear a mask anywhere is authoritarianism run wild. Interesting conflict in certain places where old laws prohibit the wearing of masks in places like banks. So which law does a prudent person break when trying to deposit a check where the conflicting laws exist? Equal enforcement dictates either way you're a criminal that must be prosecuted and punished.

The drive-up windoiw? When you're on foot and the local law prohibits walking up to windows designed for use by those in vehicles? Of course, for their own good.....

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I defend the basic view of this article. If you disagree, explain why. I am especially interested in debating liberal views, but of course all are welcome to express their opinions.

Trump was ineffective ... A future strongman won’t be...

Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world.... But there’s one key difference between Trump and everyone else.... The others are all talented politicians who win elections again and again....

Trump is not good at his job. He doesn’t even seem to like it much. He is too undisciplined and thin-skinned to be effective at politics over a sustained period, which involves winning repeated elections....

The situation is ... perfect ... for a talented politician to run on Trumpism in 2024. A person without the eager Twitter fingers and greedy hotel chains, someone with a penchant for governing rather than golf. An individual who does not irritate everyone who doesn’t already like him.... Someone who isn’t on tape boasting about assaulting women, and who says the right things about military veterans. Someone who can send appropriate condolences about senators who die, instead of angering their state’s voters, as Trump did, perhaps to his detriment, in Arizona. A norm-subverting strongman who can create a durable majority and keep his coalition together to win more elections....

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism — without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent — is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president.

America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

I think this is nonsense, Trump was very effective, moreso than his predecessors were or Biden will be. The economy was doing very well until the Coronavirus hit, which contrary to popular democrat opinions was not his fault. Ditto his foreign policy, for the most part. Trump was and is a total asshole, but IMHO he has certainly been more effective than Obama ever was.

I suggest you see my comment #65 in which I made it clear that he was “not effective” as a right populist authoritarian in getting re-elected. In this he proved far less effective than other strongmen, so-called “winners” — some of whom he clearly admired:

“‘Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.’”

“This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters.”

As for his effectiveness or ineffectiveness in other matters — I leave that for another discussion.