Ordinary World: Holiday Hangover Edition

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

38 Responses

  1. Chip Daniels says:

    China and Russia are offering us a valuable real time lesson in how authoritarianism gains and consolidates power.

    Neither of course was ever free in the Western sense of the word, but in recent decades were much more free than they are now.

    In each case, freedom wasn’t taken in the Hollywood version of goosestepping troops and cataclysmic invasion. Instead it was a long series of slowly encroaching bites, establishing a favored elite with a powerful vested interest in self-protection, and legal system designed to protect but not bind, and bind but not protect.

    What’s noteworthy for me, is that these regimes are popular, and the authoritarianism is backed by what might be a minority, but a large enough one that it can install and defend the regime.
    Also noteworthy is the lack of drama and violence. If you walk down the street of Moscow or Beijing, you won’t see piles of corpses, no secret police kicking in doors.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      China and Russia also show that soft authoritarian governments can’t resist the temptation to go hard authoritarian. So as democracy dissolves into soft authoritarianism you are going to eventually get hard authoritarianism.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      The nicest thing I could say is we’re currently debating the flavor of our authoritarianism.

      But you’re delusional if you think this is a problem peculiar to the right.

      In fact, the meanest thing I can say is that the Left is much further along and in a much better position to impose their flavor… the dissolving that Lee mentions is the solvent of technocratic liberalism that has the broad minority support of ‘all the right people’ and will impose a benevolent authoritarianism that we’ll all agree is just right. How else could we not?

      Among the bad things Trump has ushered in will be the constant whirl of “well, Trump did it” and “we’re not doing what Trump did, that was bad… we’re doing this, and this is good.” In my ongoing One Ring analogy… we’re not embarking on the hopeless mission of destroying the ring, we’re going to use it for good!Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Marchmaine says:

        This. Everyone thinks their flavor of authoritarianism is for the betterment of society in some flavor of decline.

        But in the end, it’s just a question of who has the power, and who is under the boot heel.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          This is entirely true for the reason that freedom and tyranny don’t have precisely defined edges.
          What is freedom or license, or what is tyranny or order are largely a matter of general consensus not objective metrics.

          But like the argument of the beard, its easy to turn this into a fallacy where freedom and tyranny are merely arbitrary matters of opinion.Report

      • Trump is the most authoritarian president we’ve ever had, by far. He is enormously popular among his party members, far more than anyone is among Democrats. and they’re largely encouraging him to be more dictatorial, e.g. to retain the presidency be whatever means are necessary. Among those are many members of federal and state government. So you’ll forgive me if I take that more seriously than I do the powerless fringe that call themselves The Squad.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          Trump is Yeltsin/Berlusconi levels of Authoritarian… that’s not a good level, but we’re getting about as much danger as those figures entail. Stylistically Trump is like Yeltsin – incompetent and buffoonish – but unlike post-Yeltsin, I don’t think the US is institutionally as weak, so Trump doesn’t usher in a Putin… Unfortunately Trump doesn’t have the good grace to drink himself to death, so we’ll have to endure his post-Presidential nonsense for as long as CNN continues to insist we must.

          Personally I’m less worried about a Putin than I am about a Xi.

          Xi’s rise is methodical, fully systematized, popular where it needs to be, it is supported by elite institutions and people, and will reproduce itself. Trump is an idiosyncratic detour to the Xi scenario. The thing about Xi is that he’s not “enormously popular” as a personality…I’m less worried about enormously popular idiots… If I worry, I worry about the systemic consolidation of powerful institutions by people I’ve never heard of. One of them is our future Xi. It has nothing to do with The Squad and their back-bencher performative acts.Report

          • Anyone who tries to become a dictator by consolidating power within the Democratic Party will be sorely disappointed.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              Eh… it’ll be something catchy like the Reformed Democratic party or the Democratic League or some such. Our parties aren’t anything useful other than a branding mechanism. I don’t think the Democratic Party as it’s constituted has much of a shelf life anyway, though.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Marchmaine says:

                It’ll be interesting to see if either party disappears. The parties have been around so long they might just live on, at least in name, for a long time to come.

                The current Republican Party is kind of like a rock band who’s only original member is the drummer, but still tours under the original moniker. An R from 20 years ago would hardly believe what’s going on in his party’s name today.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                A lot of R’s from 20 years ago have openly abandoned the GOP.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

            It isn’t Trump anymore, it is the Trumpists, all 75 million of them, crying out for a dictator to take power away from those who they refuse to acknowledge as fully equal citizens.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Heh… all 75M of them. The daily riots are… oh wait. Sheesh.

              Honestly, this is just textbook othering.Report

              • Jesse in reply to Marchmaine says:

                It’s so hard to be somebody who just wants a world where anybody who’s not a straight Christian knows their proper place in society, which is below.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jesse says:

                See, the problem for people like us here at OT, is that we have nothing to fear from either the left or the right.

                For those of us who are white, straight, educated, gainfully employed and nominally Christian, there is no conceivable scenario in which we are oppressed.

                There will never be gulags for white people, or re-education camps for Christians. There will never be a purge of straight people, and no man will be forced to wear a dress by President Frank N. Furter.

                So for us, this is all sort of vicarious. Our fear is the fear of watching our country devolve into something awful. But awful for other people.

                I say this only because of how easy it is for us to be detached and civil and objective. To see this as like barstool sports where we are chatting about the Bears or the Lakers.

                Our counterparts in Russia and China aren’t the dissidents or Uighurs; Our counterparts are the comfortable bourgeoisie who support Xi or Putin, or at least, have no reason to oppose them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jesse says:

                That’s one heck of a pivot.

                “Trump is a buffoonish incompetent leader, a Yeltsin, not a Putin.”
                “You just want people under your thumb!”

                I’m waiting for the hoarders and wreckers talking points to start showing up. (It would have worked, without hoarders and wreckers.)Report

          • North in reply to Marchmaine says:

            You certainly have a point about Xi but China hawks trying to amp up the threat that China poses way exaggerate it. China’s a big player on the world stage- with a population that size it should be- but China’s whole “power” structure is built on sand. They have an ecological crisis and a demographic crisis that’re poised to land on them with both feet basically at the same time and their power, such as it is, is primarily based on their position in a lot of supply chains. But that power has accumulated primarily because they haven’t used it. If China keeps being “ugly China” and the rest of the world accommodates change then those supply chains will shift away and then China will end up a big nation full of aging people with no prospects for dealing with their senescence and a desperate need for labor and raw materials. Xi seems kind of dangerous but only in as much as China itself is dangerous. I don’t see how Xi is special.

            I’ll grant that the cultural left has certainly been collecting some scalps, though in fairness they’re really small potatoes scalps and they’ve been collected mainly through non-governmental action- but there’s something massively ironic about a Republican President with the cowardly acquiescence and tacit support of his entire parties formal power structure trying to overturn the election of a moderate Democrat (after the explicit, decisive and unambiguous electoral repudiation of the left by the Democratic Party in their primaries) and right wingers instead look at the squad and twitter and say “yes, the true threat to the polity is obviously going to arise from the left.”Report

          • Slade the Leveller in reply to Marchmaine says:

            I think you’re right about Xi. There was a long article in the Atlantic Monthly about how China is setting up a surveillance state, and it was absolutely chilling reading. All done with the acquiescence of the staring at the phones masses.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          I think a serious list would have Wilson at #1. FDR is a solid #2, probably followed by Adams and Jackson. Who would round out the top five? Maybe Nixon, or Teddy Roosevelt? I don’t think Trump would be in the top ten. You don’t even have to go too revisionist to have Lincoln above him.Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky says:

            How did you leave off Obama?Report

            • Pinky in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              Serious question or not?Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky says:

                You’ve expresses many times that Obama is really no different fromTrump, so, yes, serious.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                In terms of personality, yes.

                I don’t know where I’d rank the Obama presidency in terms of authoritarianism. It’s a tough call because the expected parameters of executive activity are so much greater than they used to be. I’ve said on many occasions that his NLRB move troubles me more than anything else he did. The idea that a president can declare Congress out of session in order to make recess appointments is borderline impeachable. In terms of impact, it was only two board members, but in terms of contempt for the Constitution, it outdistances anything else that’s happened in the 2000’s. I have such strong feelings about it that I don’t trust my ability to appraise the Obama presidency in terms of authoritarianism at all.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky says:

                Congress was out of session by all normal indications. McConnell played pro forma games to deny recess appointments, and Obama called him on it. The court weighed in, and that was the end of that.

                Compare that to 4 years of ignoring Congressional subpoenas. It isn’t in the same ballpark.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Mike Schilling says:

              My beef with Obama starts with his embrace of the highly misnamed Patriot Act, most notably its warrantless wiretapping aimed at internet content and email. Like several democrats before him, he embraced the delusional notion that in order to appear “strong” on national security he had to out do Republican. Just that open thing did more to taint his presidency then anything else, though his neoliberal economic orthodoxy runs a very close second.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to Philip H says:

                Just that open thing did more to taint his presidency then anything else, though his neoliberal economic orthodoxy runs a very close second.

                Presidents who accept expert consensus are the worst! Did you know that he also bought into the expert consensus on climate change? I heard that he’s telling people to get the COVID-19 vaccine, too.

                You must love Trump. He never listens to those eggheads.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      The upside of a pandemic is that going to war becomes more costly, and you have a bunch of other things to worry about. The downside is the opportunity for greater internal oppression.Report

  2. LeeEsq says:

    OW7: In which the world again deals with the issue of vice law or how free people should be to make bad decisions. There is definitely an obesity pandemic in the world but using heavy handed tactics to combat it seem unwise and not likely to work. The obesity pandemic might be one of those problems without a solution.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to LeeEsq says:

      My son is a bit pudgy. We don’t keep sweets, or bagged snacks at home. But he goes to school, and gets snacks like fruit roll ups, or sweet quick breads, and chocolate milk, and cereal. It’s all packaged as ‘healthy’ (fruit roll-ups made with real fruit and juice, nothing artificial; whole grain frosted flakes, etc.), but it’s still calories he doesn’t really need.Report

      • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        I believe the issue is lifestyle much more than availability. And to be clear I don’t mean that personally, we’re all guilty of it. From the way we do education all the way up to how we earn a living we are chained to desks and screens. It’s so easy to stress eat stuff out of a package and never get around to taking a jog. Thr inbox is always overflowing.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD says:

          This too. Not enough recess time at school for kids. Bug usually slims down in the summer when we can kick him out of the house for hours everyday after school.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

          Lifestyle is part of it, but the food pyramid used to be different.

          Also, the HFCS thing has me wondering whether there ought to be important studies done.

          But Iowa, man. First Caucus in the country.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

            Heh… Done and Done.

            There’s not the slightest ambiguity about the health impact of HFCS.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

              But they made commercials!

              Which, seriously, made me even more paranoid.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                Hah… nice.

                Yeah, corn syrup is just sugar… this ‘issue’ is we put sugar in all sorts of foods where we don’t need to put sugar. Now if you read labels carefully they break out HFCS, Dextrose, Palm sugar, etc. etc.

                Of course a popsicle has sugars… that’s the point; the turn-about to that commercial is putting Honey on Pizza or piling sugar on potato chips or coating your salad in a thick ooze of Dextrose. Which is basically how we eat.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to InMD says:

          People definitely burned more calories when most of us did physical labor for a living. Even white color workers probably burned more calories because they had to walk more places and do other stuff without computers.Report

  3. [OW8]

    “Archeologists remain puzzled by the inscription ‘Duos denarios, et hoc est præbuistis ei gladium suum collo meo'”.Report