The rise of American authoritarianism
This may add to the discussion I have seen about the whole Trump thing, and why we (as a group) seem so uncomfortable with all of the candidates on both sides. I can see the basic idea being applied as equally to the Democrap candidates as well. It also is a terrifying prospect from an Objectivist viewpoint, as it seems to be the foundational result of a lot of what I saw being expressed in AS. Only a seed shift in the sheeple desire to have a :daddy" state to take care of everything, and allow nothing, can produce this effect. Somewhat chilling, if true.
The real question is whether or not people should be free to live for themselves or forced to live in support of others. That is the very nature of authoritarianism: wanting to force others to support you.
it will collapse financially at some point...hopefully there is enough Objectivists left to pick up the pieces and try again...prepare
we are sliding into the abyss...it is only a question of "when" not "if"...prepare
At the detail level, it might have been interesting to examine support for Ben Carson or Jeb Bush or Whoever, but, ultimately, pointless. Trump and Clinton are the subjects of the discussion.
The success of Virgin Galactic and Space-X do not command your attention as much as does Donald Trump and his mirror image Hillary Rodham Clinton. But they are really irrelevant to your own pursuit of your own happiness.
"And in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political scientist Marc Hetherington found that authoritarianism mattered more than income, ideology, gender, age and education in predicting whether voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama." -- The MacWilliams article cited in the original VOX story: http://www.politico.com/magazine/stor...
The source of the "parenting style" theory is here:
Authoritarian Child Rearing, Parental Locus of Control, and the Child's Behavior Style.
Janssens, Jan M. A. M.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, v17 n3 p485-501 Sep 1994
Examined relationships among childrearing, parental locus of control about childrearing, and child's behavior style. Found that parents who perceived their child's behavior as either externalizing or internalizing had a weak internal locus of control and were more authoritarian. Perceived externalizing child behavior was positively related to authoritarian parental behavior, whereas parents of internalizing children were less authoritarian. (HTH)
Also: Parents' Child-Rearing Style and Child's Sociometric Status.
Dekovic, Maja; Janssens, Jan M . A . M.
Developmental Psychology, v28 n5 p925-32 Sep 1992
In a study of 112 children of 6-11 years of age and their parents, authoritative/democratic and authoritarian/restrictive factors in parent behavior predicted the child's prosocial behavior and sociometric status. Results support the idea that popular and rejected children have different family experiences. (BG)
Also, it is a matter of what you can do with the news. If President Obama wants to seize all guns, then you better get yours while you still can. On the other hand, the ability to 3-D print a new pancreas does not translate into action for most people. So, I get that.
On the other points, again, it can be complicated. I understand the "state of fear" argument. (You have read the Crichton book, most likely.) Keeping everyone afraid of an unsolvable problem certainly invites them to acceed to the restricitions and to demand more controls. For myself, however, the question is not whether we should have a world government, but what kind of government the world should have. (The Ayn Rand Institute has her lecture on "Global Balkanization" http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-wo.... I could not find a stand-alone publication online.)
Jan
You have already sided with Trump, that much is obvious. That's your choice. But his history is replete with evidence that Trump is just as narcissistic and authoritarian as Obama. He's admitted that he would use Executive Orders in exactly the same way Obama has if the Legislative Branch won't go along with him. I just don't drink the "revolt Kool-Aid" Trump supporters drink. I look at his record and his history and see some extremely troubling things. That being said, Obama had extremely troubling things in his history and the voting mobs put him in office as well. That worked out well, didn't it?
Is there a perfect candidate for President? No. Nobody's perfect. But I'm not going to vote for Trump, Sanders OR Hillary.
PS - not me downvoting you, but if you continue to push Trump purely from an ideological standpoint, I'm going to start. Show me how Trump is going to be the best option and I'll consider it. So far, all I've seen is hot air and bad hair.
Secondly, politics today is all about manipulation , secrecy, and cronyism . That needs to stop before people can make rational political choices. I like trump in that he has a record of speaking his mind and not helping to hide these bad things. He came out and willingly admitted using bankruptcy and eminent domain because they were legal. At least now people can see what's going on and decide to oppose those things. We need Hilary's taking of 15m from Wall Street means she has promised to give them freebies at our expense. We need someone who will expose cronyism and trump has a history of doing just that. He tells you how political figures are so easily bought off by even his financial contributions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...
"He came out and willingly admitted using bankruptcy and eminent domain because they were legal."
I'm sure that's comforting to all the people who lost their investment money because "The Donald" was a bad business manager. The four bankruptcies alone totaled $1 billion and he was kicked off the Boards of all four as condition of the bankruptcies. That doesn't really strike me as tremendous business acumen. And I'm sure that the people who were forced to move from their homes and businesses just so Trump could take over the property are similarly consoled by his admissions. That argument is an excuse, not an endorsement.
"We need someone who will expose cronyism and trump has a history of doing just that."
Can you provide a link with anything like that? I'd sure be interested ... if it isn't just puffery.
I know Marco Rubio isn't going to change the game. I know Hillary Clinton wants to keep tilting the table until it breaks, thinking that she'll become queen. Bernie Sanders is just an ignoramus. What I want to know is how Trump is going to bring back the Constitution, because all I'm seeing is someone who wants in on the big money in politics and likes to see his name in lights.
Do I want an administrator in the office of the President? Yes. Is Trump the most qualified? That depends on how closely one wants to look at his business deals. In all four bankruptcies, one of the conditions imposed by the judge was the Trump be tossed from management. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. He's a great celebrity figure, but hardly one of quick and disarming wit like Reagan. I see in Trump another GW Bush - at best.
"I think you are somehow fearful trump would misuse the powers of president."
Absolutely I am and I think anyone would be a fool to think ANY President is going to repeat George Washington and turn down the siren song of power. What I am evaluating is whether or not a candidate has the self-control to stay within the Constitutionally proscribed powers of the office. Narcissists do not have such self-control and Trump himself has said that he will rule by Executive Action just like Obama did. Hillary isn't as much a narcissist as just outright power-crazed. Could Rubio run the country? Who knows, but he's really not in contention for the nomination right now, so I'm going to shelf that thought. Cruz is hated by his own party - probably even more than the Establishment Republicans despise Trump. But the fact that he has won several states and is poised to win several more today says that he does have popular support. And current polls (if you believe them) have Cruz beating Hillary in a General Election. Rubio also wins. Trump loses.
"The GOP is going to risk alienating a lot of voters"
I don't care about the Republican Party. A win of either Trump or Cruz forces a re-structuring of the GOP which IMHO is long overdue. Trump alienates voters as well and so does Hillary. That's not a good reason to vote for any of them.
Trump is an abrasive, blunt orator. Some people like that. But I'm looking for substance - for policy backed by history. In Trump I see just another political opportunist and power-monger. I see someone who has already used the long arm of government to get what he wants and is unrepentant about it, which indicates an intent to do that again. I see someone who likes the idea of big government because it fills his lust for power and self-aggrandizement. In short, I see Obama with a different label. That is decidedly unappealing.
Would he hire good advisers? The bigger question is will he listen to them. Narcissists are not known for their collaborative abilities.
Would he consider the issues? I don't know. And that troubles me. I haven't seen a moment of serious contemplation from him on the campaign trail. He has to always have the answers so he makes stuff up to cover when he doesn't know. Impetuousness is not a virtue I want in a President.
Would he get along with other nations? I don't know. His foreign policy statements don't inspire much confidence (see Israel vs Palestinians or his comments on Putin, Mexico, or China).
Would he speak his mind? That's an unequivocal yes, but it's a double-edged sword. Trump is a lot of bluster and sandpaper. My question is: can he dial it back when necessary? Good managers don't jump into things with pre-formed opinions. They allow their advisors to present things and make recommendations, encourage discussion, then decide and move forward. That is an area of serious concern to me with "The Donald" - mainly because of his narcissistic tendencies and desire to be seen as a subject matter expert on absolutely everything.
Would he undo Obama's excesses? I don't know, but his acknowledgement that he would use Executive Orders leads me to believe that he would continue the precedent set by Obama to rule by rules.
He has decades of history building things in areas where it is hard to get things built. I have a great deal of confidence that he will be able to succeed at many of the things he tries to accomplish -- my concern is what will he actually try to accomplish.
Cruz, on the other hand, I agree with many of his positions except the high focus on religion. I wonder if he will actually be able to get along with congress and get things done. You do have to make deals or go the Obama route and try to be a dictator.
I agree.
I think the religious emphasis of Cruz is overblown. I appreciate that he is who he is and is unapologetic about it, as opposed to Trump who only became "religious" to pander. Trump should have stuck to being uninterested because his pretending to be Christian was completely and painfully obviously fake.
Here's my concern about deal-making: we already have a Congress who is eager to make deals. And most of them are BAD deals. I'd much rather have gridlock than the non-stop bad deals which come out of these gangs of X which laud "bi-partisanship" only to hose (insert much stronger synonym) the American people. I really don't want any more deal-makers. I want someone who has firm principles he isn't afraid to stand for, because the Republican Congress is more than eager to cave! I'd like to take advantage of that to either expose the Republicans or force them to split into two parties. I'd love to see a President who wants to return us to Constitutional values and can use the indecisiveness of our current Congress to get it done. ;)
I don't expect anyone to "fix" the Senate. That won't happen until the States repeal the 17th Amendment and return control of that body to the States where it belongs. But I would also not fall prey to the fallacy of association and attribute to any of the three above the failures of the Republican Party as a whole just because they have an (R) attached to their name.
"A 19 trillion dollar debt needs something to happen, and soon."
I agree wholeheartedly, but if something is to happen, a profligate spender/taxer is the wrong kind of person to have in the White House. Trump prefers more government spending and has proposed higher taxes on the "wealthy". Cruz went to Iowa and managed to persuade Iowans that leveling the playing field and eliminating subsidies was a good idea. That took guts and conviction and a plan. Now I will freely admit that I'm not a fan of his VAT idea - Cruz isn't 100% ideal - but what he is is a Constitutionalist who has advocated for the original intent of the First and Second Amendments in front of the Supreme Court - and won those cases. That to me indicates a record to support the rhetoric that no other current candidate can come close to matching.
Every state but Oklahoma will have other choices on the ballot.
Anyone actually wanting freedom, individual rights, limited government, a free market, seriously needs to start voting Libertarian.
Guess how they were going to enforce that? Wheedle, “Pretty please, with sugar on top?”
No.
They instituted a “benevolent” totalitarian police state, where everything not mandatory, is taxed, regulated, licensed, or forbidden. And now we have stooges like the Golfer-in-Chief to perform for the masses.
"This "action side" of authoritarianism, he believed, was the key thing that distinguished Trump supporters from supporters of other GOP candidates. "The willingness to use government power to eliminate the threats — that is most clear among Trump supporters."
Authoritarians generally and Trump voters specifically, we found, were highly likely to support five policies:
Using military force over diplomacy against countries that threaten the United States
Changing the Constitution to bar citizenship for children of illegal immigrants
Imposing extra airport checks on passengers who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent in order to curb terrorism
Requiring all citizens to carry a national ID card at all times to show to a police officer on request, to curb terrorism
Allowing the federal government to scan all phone calls for calls to any number linked to terrorism
What these policies share in common is an outsize fear of threats, physical and social, and, more than that, a desire to meet those threats with severe government action — with policies that are authoritarian not just in style but in actuality. The scale of the desired response is, in some ways, what most distinguishes authoritarians from the rest of the GOP."
So if there's any support or even belief for _individual natural rights* in any of that, I'll eat my hat with salsa.
Is Libya and example of that?
2. changing the constitution...
Some say that the constitution doesn't need to be changed, that the 14th amendment just needs to be interpreted properly.
3. imposing extra airport checks...
How many bombs have been found in YOUR shoes? Or your child's? Is it proper to inspect everyone, when ALL of the terrorist activity is coming from one group?
4. requiring a national ID card...
What do you think passports, driver's licenses and social security numbers are?!?
5. allowing scanning of phone calls for calls linked to terrorism...
At what point do you find probable cause?!?
“Under no circumstance will Mexico pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing,” said Mexico’s finance minister, Luis Videgaray, in a Reuters report.
“Building a wall between Mexico and the United States is a terrible idea. It is an idea based on ignorance and has no foundation in the reality of North American integration,” he said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/mexico-no-....
Just roll that around and think of it's implications. "North American integration" does he mean "North American Union"? Trump may have been more right than he knows. As Michael Savage says: "Borders, Language, Culture" without those there is no United States.
It's obvious that you and Savage are more concerned about being in control than in having liberty, unless you equate control and liberty. For myself, there are costs in order to maintain liberty. Taking full responsibility for myself, my life, my security, and my principles rather than handing them over to fear mongers and control freaks is maybe the most important.
In case you haven't noticed, we are effectively living in an authoritarian state, with fear mongers and control freaks deciding how an American citizen should live. Every year there are thousands upon thousands of new regulations imposed upon the citizens of the country by nameless, faceless bureaucrats that take away some more of our liberties and property rights. From what kind of electricity can be generated to what kind of car you can drive, how much you're going to pay to drive that car, to what kind of house you are going to live in, where you're going to build it, where your kids are going to go to school, what they are taught,what they can eat when they get there, even down to what kind of health insurance you have to buy. Every internet exchange or phone call you make is being "Hoovered up" by a government agency in SLC. That's not to mention the antics of the NSA, TSA, EPA, BLM, HHS, IRS, Department of Education, etc. One can wax eloquently about all the rights in the constitution, but in reality they've been pretty much eliminated or subjugated by the authoritarian government that is already in place. They are only there on paper. I am reminded of something Theodore Roosevelt said in one of his writings that "people should be managed like cattle." Well we're just about there, living in George Orwell's "1984" where we can't go anywhere or say anything without being watched, except in the bathroom like the Russians used to do. All in the name of security. I am well aware of Franklin's statement that those that are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither. Unfortunately, I didn't have any say in which liberties I was giving up, the Oligarch authoritarian politicians did.
The sooner we all realize that politicians (of any party or leaning) as well as those that make their livings from talking about them and politics in general are not our friends or supporters of liberty, the better off we'll all be. They are power seekers, pure and simple.
While government is a necessary evil, it is still an evil. Put no one, especially a politician on a pedestal or the power will corrupt them.
Mexico can't say no, it's the money already flowing from the U.S. that he intends to use.
The Founders recognized the risk that the office of the President would take on the trappings of imperium, and tried to put roadblocks to that path in the manner they structured our government. Unfortunately, power is a corrupting force that creates an insatiable desire for more, offering the delusion that all problems would be solved if there was only one immutable national vision.
The only solution to the detrimental shift in the mechanisms of American governance may be a Constitutional Convention, driven by the states. Even that is a "be careful what you wish for" approach, with the possibility of losing more freedom than we hope to gain.
It isn't rocket science this flirting with Marxist theology is idiotic.
I guess when I look at Trump I think "He builds buildings in New York City -- and around the World". Building things is an incredibly cooperative activity, you need to get through an amazing amount of government red tape, get the financing and get all the parties together. You can't just issue orders -- well, you can but then you need a really good staff.
I'm not terribly impressed with the difficulty of the accomplishments that the various candidates have done except for two: Trump and his buildings and Carson and neurosurgery.
It was nice that they quantified that 65% of supporters of gov't authoritarianism are Republicans. 75% of those opposed to gov't authoritarianism were Democrats. So even though neither party wants to shrink gov't, we have one party, the Republicans, that's the clear winner for supporters of intrusive gov't..
The article makes me hopeful that authoritarian Trump will lead to a backlash of anti-authoritarianism, making the Libertarians a viable choice.
Jan
It's clear that you share Trump's Pragmatist view that anything is negotiable. You admire his juvenile behavior and criticize others. His cronyistic use of politicians gets a pass from you.
This is the kind of blind devotion that will excuse any behavior. When it is multiplied within many other individuals, it can become a mob directed by whim.
This is exactly the same way that Hitler got in office. While I don't think Trump will march people off the the gas chamber, it is hard to tell what he will do with the power of the President. There are more ways to destroy people that don't involve killing them but are just as effective. Personally I think we will find out quickly, what I thought to be a tyrannical Obama administration, will be mild compared to what we will get with Trump. Of course I may be wrong but really don't think I am.
This has nothing to do with your deflection about 'John Galt'. It has everything to do with preventing Trump's even higher level of unstable fascist views into our government.
Trump: Corrupt
Cruz: Liar
Rubio: Corrupt
HillaryBeast: Corrupt
Bernie: Communist
Nothing to reccomend any of them. I agree he is a perfect poster boy for authoritarianism, but he is also more of a fighter than the rest. He is hammering Rubio with his credit card debacle where he supposedly used a Party credit card for several trips, including one to vegas, and rubio said "oops wrong card, sorry". Don't know how true it is, but that stuff is going to hurt him. Cruz keeps claiming victory, bitches about all the bad things, yest in all his time in the machine, has generated zero change or done anything he can claim. HillaryBeast is a felon and a criminal, and even if she makes a deal with Obama, when elected and it goes through, she will be impeached, leaving us with whatever goober she has for a VP. Bernie is a communist whos trying to buy votes with money he does not have. His healthcare argument fails when co0nfronted with reality: the VA. Now, we have no one left so who DO you vote for?
That is the problem and the quandary most sheeple face, so they go with the guy who is not of the enemy, and who promises the most. Trump is the best hands down at promising, without it even sounding like a giveaway...
I don't think it's just my patriotic bias in saying the US is great. It's built on ideas. There's no US "race" as there is a Japanese race. The US ideas mean when the average American hears "he ignored tradition and did it his own way," our first gut reaction is "cool, good for him.". In most places in the world there's more of "Well who does he think he is?" Eventually it depends on the details, but I love how our first reaction is to admire people doing something new.
"Took a liberty," or "that's a liberty!" means you did something wrong in Europe, but in US is sounds like something good. "Collaborate" means to give secrets to the enemy in Europe, yet it's positive in US. "Disruptive" sounds bad in Europe, but in US it means to bring a product or service to a market that previously couldn't get it. Many shopping centers, plazas, and hotels are called "royal" in Europe, but the word in US is mostly associated with "royal pain in the a$$"
When you look at Latin America and other parts of the world, things we now take for granted, like women being equal to men in basic rights, are just now being adopted.
So the US is great. My impression is Trump would like to make our view of these phrases more like Europe's, i.e. to take away some of our greatness.
I mostly agree with all that. The only minor difference is I'd rather have people who at least pretend so their constituents have a shot at getting them to back off as in, "Wait, you said this was going to be about optimism and change but this sounds like the way President GW Bush did things."
If they run as an authoritarian and win, they can rightly say authoritarianism is part of their mandate.
My families interests. I have never voted democrat in 8 presidential elections .I have voted republican once 4 years ago because I was hoping to dethrone the current liar in chief. I will refrain from further political discussion today as its Sunday and I am in need of some peace of mind.
Peace to all reasoning people.
I like to think my family's interests are to provide an environment where we can follow our interests and dreams. I tend toward thinking Democrats are better at that. That doesn't matter so much because neither party calls for shrinking gov't cost and intrusiveness.
Just to rephrase, technically I want to them to do less for me and my family, not more. Democrats at least claim to be less authoritarian. Above Nickursis and I discuss whether claiming it if they don't do it is a good thing. If you consider Libertarians to be independents, then they have much more than Ds or Rs in at least raising questions about the size and intrusiveness of gov't.
I found that assertion to be just laughable, to be honest. Authoritarians are those who aren't satisfied with the laws on the books but want to make every man an offender - AS-style. The (R) or (D) is secondary - I look at who actually keeps proposing all these miles and miles of new laws and regulations and one can do a pretty thorough and short analysis of that to see that the Democrats are miles ahead on the authoritarian bent. That's not to say there aren't complicit Republicans, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the Progressive Party is the party of freedom.
I think that the author also seriously confuses nihilism with anti-authoritarianism. The way I read it, the authors were arguing that anyone who wanted societal rules were authoritarians while they failed to address whether or not the rules being discussed had any foundation in reality. To me, they were arguing that all lawmaking amounted to authoritarianism regardless of the outcomes of such. It quickly degenerated into blatant partisanship and fear-mongering from what initially looked to be a promising analysis.
I just think Trump is so popular because he is non-establishment. And, he's saying things people are thinking: things like we should really put a stop to open immigration until we know "what in hell is going on". Such statements are pretty powerful.
In still not voting...for anybody being offered. Every damn one of them comes at this whole thing with the premise that government fixes stuff.
Are you an authoritarian if:
-You expect everyone to obey the laws you are required to obey?
-You expect your neighbors to knock politely upon your door and ask to come in...whether it be your home or your country?
-You expect someone you hire to represent you to behave and do the job your hired them for?
do you expect that no one will force you or anyone else to do things we all know are wrong and if they do they should be punished?
Do you expect anyone from other countries to obey our laws, not to mow you down with gun fire or blow you to smithereens?
Do these things make YOU an authoritarian?
Note: History.- Karl Marx predicted that if enough chaos was injected into the American or any capitalistic Culture that the people would cry out for a strong man. And at that point...America would be over.
Is there a danger that individuals will seek to take power and dictate to others what their goals should be? Yes - as long as humans exist. To me, these are the true authoritarians: they are those who want to subvert the rights of others so as to place others beholden to their decisions. But I think these authors conflate authoritarians with those who only seek to uphold and observe universal laws.
accepting, even encouraging, aggressive government
in general. . sure, we need to turn the ship of state in
a hurry, to keep from driving off the cliff, but when
the turn is done, how do we revert to gentleness
(breathe, Donald;;; breathe) in D.C.??? -- j
.
"The American media, over the past year, has been trying to work out something of a mystery: Why is the Republican electorate supporting a far-right, orange-toned populist with no real political experience, who espouses extreme and often bizarre views? How has Donald Trump, seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly become so popular?"
I thought Trump was a typo for Obama and Orange was a typo for "brown."
Whatever.
Thanks.
When too much water retreats at the beach, leaving its asphyxiating voters flopping full of frustration behind--LOOK OUT!
A tsunami backlash is on its way for better or for worse.
You don't mess with mama nature or human nature either.
P.S. A Hillary voter ain't got nothing to do with the above norm for natural or having any common sense either.
Michael Savage said it best: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Given that Objectivism is based on emotional premises of confidence, freedom and empowerment, this is not exactly the most preferable environment in which to operate at the moment.
You've been on this site long enough to well understand that Objectivism is based on rationally, logical reasoning of facts, not on emotional feelings as premises--particularly as studied in Objectivism as you state and lay claim to.
As to your little jibe and snark about my history on the site--well, just 'sticks and stones'....
.
Underneath it all, our choice of axioms is influenced by emotional factors. For some years, I have sought to live by an analogue of Occam's Razor - the principle that an axiom which leads to longer healthier happier life is truer than one which leads to shorter, or less happy, or less healthy life.
That said, it is true that the formal philosophy is not about what you feel. Vanilla ice cream can make you feel good. Understanding why requires the rational-empirical (objective) method.
I've always been engaged in and thinking about consciousness, what it is and how it functions as well as the apparent differentiation between men and how to, not overcome, but rather work through the awareness and cognition barriers resulting from that differentiation. Those levels of separation almost seem at time to be quantized, but all study that I've accessed to date doesn't seem able to identify or determine an input that can 'leap' that separation and barrier or reach through it.
It may well boil down to Rand's identities of awareness, integration, movement to the sub-conscious, and automation with some biological restraints mixed as well. But that's my academic interest.
I place a lot of emphasis on self-awareness and self-knowledge.
See also, "An Objectivist's View of Donald Trump" here:
https://www.facebook.com/don.watkins/...