Is Leftist Authoritarianism A Thing Or Not?
In a previous discussion, I was…chastised…for my ongoing declarations that the left in the US isn’t authoritarian. The content of that discussion came off as misdirecting “whataboutism” – but that doesn’t mean the underlying idea is inherently wrong. While I might prefer the right to own their own stuff, too many won’t yet. The right side of American politics is definitely leaning authoritarian, but that’s not why I wrote this.
So is the left in America authoritarian? Does it contain authoritarian elements? Am I just in my own little bubble?
As you might expect, I went looking for data to inform my response. And there’s not much there. Sally Satel has a piece in the Centerist Atlantic on the one research study done so far:
An ambitious new study on the subject by the Emory University researcher Thomas H. Costello and five colleagues should settle the question. It proposes a rigorous new measure of antidemocratic attitudes on the left. And, by drawing on a survey of 7,258 adults, Costello’s team firmly establishes that such attitudes exist on both sides of the American electorate.
Costello and his colleagues administered their new LWA index and Altemeyer’s original RWA scale. Some differences emerged between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians; the former were more open to new experiences and more receptive to science than the latter, for example. Yet the new research documents a large overlap in authoritarian structure—a “shared psychological core,” as the authors put it—between high scorers on their new LWA index and Altemeyer’s original RWA scale, which they also administered. The authoritarian mentality, whether on the far left or far right, the authors conclude, exerts “powerful pressures to maintain discipline among members, advocate aggressive and censorious means of stifling opposition, [and] believe in top-down absolutist leadership.”
So yes, I was wrong. Authoritarianism exists on the left. Take your victory and run with it . . .
It will be a short lap however:
I asked Costello whether left-wing and right-wing authoritarians exist in equal proportions. “It is hard to know the ratio,” he said, making clear that a subject’s receptivity to authoritarianism falls on a continuum, like other personality characteristics or even height, so using hard-and-fast categories (authoritarian versus nonauthoritarian) can be tricky. “Still, some preliminary work shows the ratio is about the same if you average across the globe,” he said. In the U.S., though, Costello hypothesizes that right-wing authoritarians outnumber left-wing ones by roughly three to one. Other researchers have concluded that the number of strident conservatives in the U.S. far exceeds the number of strident progressives and that American conservatives express more authoritarian attitudes than their counterparts in Britain, Australia, or Canada.
Now, that’s a testable hypothesis, and one hopes someone tests it. My back of the envelope estimates shows me that if 26% of Americans are “highly right wing authoritarian” then that means only 8.7% of Americans are leftwing authoritarians. That’s not even close to a driving force in national politics. And it means the Biden Administration policies are nowhere close to that line.
So why then are Republicans and conservatives so hard over on “the left wing authoritarianism is the REAL threat?”
One of the egregious lies that has taken root throughout society, and remains persistent today, is the false notion that dictatorships and fascism are associated with the left.
Once again, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Dictatorships and fascism are right-wing, not left-wing.
This “Big Lie” grew out of the aftermath of World War II and the emergence of the Cold War in the extreme backlash against communism and the Soviet Union. This was the era of the “Red Scare” and lying Republican demagogue Joe McCarthy, a U.S. senator from Wisconsin, who falsely smeared innocent liberals as being dangerous communists, destroying their careers and lives. This period ranks among the most shameful in American history.
More simply put, the cast of centrist Democratic politics as “socialism” is a defense mechanism that allows Republicans to run away from “The truth is that left-wing policies, broadly speaking, are popular and beneficial to society, while dictatorial regimes are right-wing, with policies that are unpopular and horrendous for society.” Meaning you can add $1.7 Trillion to the deficit for a decade to support billionaires and corporations, but if you want to add $250 Billion to the same deficit to support working people through things like universal pre-K, paid parental leave, prescription drug price controls via negotiation for Medicaid, or actually funding in home health care, you are doing something morally wrong because “socialist dictators” do that sort of thing. As if that makes it somehow wrong.
So what we do we do about this case perception versus reality? I think Democrats are on the right track by passing laws that begin to tilt the balance back towards labor. Sure, they aren’t going to make that 8.7% of leftist authoritarians happy, but they won’t make the right wingers happier either. And that usually mean you are doing the right thing.
Got anything that isn’t based on some dude’s hypotheses and invoking the ancient boogeyman known as Joe McCarthy – who, by the way, was held accountable by the system of the United States in a bipartisan effort, bipartisan meaning that it included many Republicans, including the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower?
Lying about history and making up “statistics” to drum up hatred for “those people?” Seems pretty fash, Philip.Report
SO the lack of statistics is I think part of the problem. Aside from the study I cited that is profiled in the Atlantic, there isn’t academic work on this – or polling. You’d think there would be; I could see Fox or Rasmuessen or Quinnipiac riding the topic hard. But so far they have avoided it.
As to history – the history of authoritarians being used as bogeymen in the US is history the Right owns whole hog. They built that scaremongering on the backs of authoritarian regimes (like the Soviets) cloaked themselves in left looking propaganda. The left never controlled the USSR, and doesn’t control China now.Report
I don’t want to weigh in on the existence of left authoritarianism, for a variety of reasons, but there is in fact decades of academic research on the relationship between authoritarianism and political orientation, in psychology, political science, and sociology. Tens of thousands of research papers, hundreds of books, god knows how many reviews. There are some really interesting findings, even in just the last few years (I like this one, which is relevant to the discussion at hand: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/692126).Report
The answer to much of this, the attempt to paint the other into a circle with the dread word Authoritarian, is probably due in part to the ever-shifting nature of who is, in real terms, actually liberal and who is actually conservative, relative to power.
As those two groups are ever-changing, people can switch in an instant from being one to the other by virtue of where they stand on any given issue.Report
The research definitely shows that authoritarianism and social domination orientation are mutable both within and between individuals and groups, and that there are complex relationships between them and ideology.
I generally think “liberal” and “conservative” are less descriptively accurate, particularly in the context of U.S. politics, of the political spectrum, both in its relation to authoritarianism/social dominance and in its relation to ideology generally, but that’s a whole ‘nother conversation that I have absolutely no interest in having here.Report
Much as I thought.
Good to hear from you, Chris.Report
You too.Report
Dwight Eisenhower did commie things like building infrastructure, keeping taxes high on job creators, and using men with guns to impose on local parent’s educational views.Report
he also took over steel production for a time because private businesses were being … obstructionist. Yet he’s never lumped in with 1950’s communist dictators like Stalin and then Kruyschev who did the same thing. I’ve always wondered why that is.Report
Eisenhower did not actually oppose McCarthy in any meaningful sense…he disliked the man and tried to undermine him, but felt held hostage by McCarthy’s far-right supporters and never made any public comments about him. Like, at all. That I can find.
A reminder: The Republicans held both the presidency and both houses of Congress during all that, and could have stopped _anything_ they wanted to stop.
In fact, elected Republicans clearly _wanted_ to stop him, which they tried to do by keeping him off the correct committee (Which didn’t work, he just hijacked the one he was on) but…were not willing to take any pushback to actually stopping it (At either the Presidental or Congressional level), because McCarthy was very popular among their voters.
(It’s kinda weird how Republican politicians keep getting held hostage to far-right demagogues who somehow manage to grab the support of a bunch of Republican voters. Huh. Some might suspect some sort of inbuilt authoritarian tendencies of Republican voters that Republican politicians do not fully agree with but are willing to use for electoral points.)
Anyway, Republicans did not actually take down McCarthy.
What took down McCarthy was Edward R. Murrow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf6fhMlxjMk
That eleven minutes and thirty-seven seconds of television on March 9, 1954 did it. The thing that eventually took down McCarthy was he didn’t understand how his behavior was playing on television (Which is understandable…television had literally _just_ happened in 1954.) and a trusted media personality decided to take his behavior and reputation apart in front of the entire nation. After that point, McCarthy’s popularity started to slide, and it became just as acceptable to attack him as go along with him, which is why, three months later, ‘Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last?’ resulted in applause from the gallery…everyone already hated him by that time.
Once Americans had turned against McCarthy, Senate Republicans actually found their spine and were willing to censure him. Well, they were willing to start considering it by the end of August, by which point McCarty had hit 51% unfavorable, and eventually did it two months later.Report
Both the Soviet Union and Communist China were authoritarian. China remains authoritarian, and Putin certainly is.
In the USA, well “tankies” exist. They tend to be young and rather idiotic. But they certainly exist. You can find them on Twitter, should you make an effort.
However, the idea that (for example) AOC is an authoritarian (never mind a “tankie”) is silly. The idea that Biden is authoritarian is downright idiotic.
By contrast, Trump was very much an authoritarian — at least he wanted to be. Our system succeeded in stopping him. But still, he was elected president. I don’t know of any “tankies” who were elected president. There are no “tankie” senators, nor any house members. There are certainly right-wing fascists in congress. We had one in the white house.
These things are not the same.
Of course, we shouldn’t ignore the actual material issues. Complaints of “left wing authoritarianism” are really complaints about policies on race and gender. The concern isn’t political prisoners are death squads. The concern is you could lose your job if you mock a trans person or use the “n-word.” It’s the desire to be a bigot without consequence.Report
Edit: “political prisoners or death squads”.Report
Putin is a right-wing nationalist authoritarian. You can make colorable arguments that China is Communist in name only these days.
The problem in the United States is that a lot of people seem to have such chips on their shoulders that doing anything remotely “eat your vegetables” esque is considered authoritarian.
Basically, I agree with you.Report
There have obviously been leftist regimes that were authoritarian and/or totalitarian. Soviet Russia, China during the Mao years, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia come to mind. Whether the current Chinese government counts as Communist in anything but name is a whole different kettle of fish and an essay for another day.
I am not fully convinced that there is a left-wing authoritarian problem in the United States except as it exists in the fever dreams of right-wingers, middle-aged guys who are realizing that they are no longer cool and get eye rolls from the youth, and moderate Democrats who are deeply upset that it can’t be the Clinton/DLC 1990s forever. However, I do think that it is interesting that twitter left has had its most success in areas where its views are the most unpopular. I think this can be simply boiled down to “talk is cheap.” Making changes to things like the names of schools and/or AP course offerings does not cost much money, if anything, compared to structural change like universal healthcare, parental leave laws, more vacation for workers, etc. So it is easy for an organization like the AMA to publish a language guideline that reads like a social justice twitter thread run amok but not mention increased access to health care as a justice issue. Same with ignoring abortion as an issue.
There was a pew study from 2018 that determined something like 80 percent of tweets come from 10 percent of the sites users. There is a weird class of very online people who somehow earns a living from discussing things on twitter and responding to things on twitter and reporting on things in twitter despite the fact that at 10 percent, it is literally an echo chamber. Some or many of these voices are quite left of center and strident. You also have a right-wing media industry that loves to nutpick and a bunch of lefties willing to go along because they see themselves as the vanguard that will replace the Democratic Party if/when it goes kaput. Some of these far lefties hate the Democrats more than they hate conservatives and are willing to go along with Lord Tuck Tuck.Report
Trying to staple authoritarianism in general to the left or right is outstandingly silly. There have been all sorts of dictators from all over the political spectrum.
Specific to the US authoritarianism gets trickier but the Left auth’s are fringe on line loud mouths with no power. Meanwhile Jan 6, R pols talking about having a national religion and making the US less democratic through all the legal means to limit voting etc etc . So yeah not equivalent.Report
One way in which the hack gap manifests itself is that the right-wing can always count on finding some liberals who end up thinking “wait a minute” and then quasi-defend right-wing talking points instead of giving it a dismissive no. They can always count on the fact that some more center Democratic politicians or supporters will find it more expedient or just fun to denounce the Squad before denouncing the Fascists.Report
Let it never be said that you haven’t done your part to close the hack gap.Report
In the long sweep of American history, the vast majority of violence has been from the right and continues to this day.
It isn’t Antifa that is demanding a civil war, its the Boogaloo Boys.Report
I don’t know if I fully agree with everything here but Chait has a long post on the woes Biden is facing: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/joe-biden-agenda.html
“The most spectacular success of this lobbying campaign was not merely that it persuaded a crucial faction of Democrats to ignore both the voters and their own policy wonks to side with organized business interests. It was that they managed to coat an agenda that was in its specifics as electorally toxic as defunding the police with the pleasant sheen of “centrism.”
To treat this all as simple graft is to dismiss the crucial channels through which this worldview reproduces itself into genuine belief. Much of the nation’s elite resides within a bubble nearly as remote from the perspective of the average American as the hothouse atmosphere of any left-wing Twitter feed. Within this bubble, the equation of the perspective of the wealthy with that of the country as a whole is simply a casual background assumption. Much of the news from Washington is unintelligible, or even absurd, unless it is understood as a transmutation of the C-suite vantage point into the vox populi.
Here is one example: “Mr. Manchin is also listening closely to his constituents,” reported the Times in September. “Earlier this month, the senator spent two days at the annual meeting of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, convened at the lavish Greenbrier resort, where ‘people were lining up to talk to him about this,’ said Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and another old friend of Mr. Manchin’s.” Notice how Manchin’s constituents turn out to be business elites meeting at a lavish resort, and the friendliest one is the president of the state’s business lobby.”Report
I think trying to measure authoritarianism as a personality trait or psychological disposition is the wrong way to look at the issue. All humans are authoritarian and have the capacity to be authoritarian. The critical question is about willingness to implement or at least tolerate procedural and substantive protections for people who aren’t you, and may even oppose you. The true mark of the authoritarian in my mind is someone who believes they are not only right, but infallible.Report
I think this is really the key point.
In my view those who think the ends justify the means and don’t abide by the golden rule are authoritarians.Report
If I’m looking at the right place, the questions that were asked nearly all address right-wing aspects. I see four categories: Right-Wing Authoritarian Scale, Social Dominance Orientation Scale, Religious Fundamentalism Scale, and Prejudice Scale. I doubt that left-wing authoritarians would answer any of the Dominance or Prejudice questions in the affirmative even if they believed in dominance or prejudice. Just taking the first question from each category:
– Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
– Some groups of people must be kept in their place.
– God has given humanity a complete, unfailing guide to happiness and salvation, which must be totally followed.
– There are entirely too many people from the wrong places getting into the United States now.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/AuthSurveyKeyScales_8-25-2020-Link.pdfReport
I think I got bumped into moderation for one link.Report
I’m still trying to sort this out. It looks like one of the studies found that US conservatives have stronger feelings about the US elections than European conservatives. Costello’s speculation about right to left authoritarianism carries a lot of weight in this article, more than a speculation could justify. I can’t figure out where the Hidden Tribes study says what the article alleges. It seems like this whole article is using a patchwork of unrelated studies with different definitions and meaning to imply something none of the studies would conclude.Report
I’m just going to flat out say I don’t believe news reporting or studies purporting to conclusively show something like this. It can’t be quantified without making a bunch of loaded assumptions. I’ve never seen something claiming it could be that wasn’t thinly disguised self-flattery or to use Andy’s term, a result of motivated reasoning.Report
so the decades of polling showing a consistent rise in self identified right wing authoritarianism are – as far as you are concerned – lies as well? Good to know.Report
You’d have to rephrase as something remotely responsive to my comment if you’d like a reply.Report
Report
The problem is you’re giving us soup, and saying it’s chicken soup, but we don’t see any chicken in it. Allusions to bigger bowls doesn’t help your argument.Report
The issue is in the begging of the question. It’s like asking if conservatives or liberals are better Christians. We know that the answer is going to depend on how we define a good Christian, a matter on which there is significant disagreement, and where no one is ever going to ‘prove’ in a scientific way that their definition is correct.
Now I’m not an idiot. I think there are all kinds of values that could be called illiberal and authoritarian floating around the political right and there certainly is support for policies I’d label as authoritarian. But that’s not really what these ‘studies’ are about and it’s certainly not what your OP is about. Indeed the manichean view you’re expressing here is pretty well summed up by your assertion that I must think people are lying, as opposed to attempting to measure something that can’t be the way they are saying it can.Report
Well said.Report
If you take the position that the left is not authoritarian, and then you are provided a laundry list of ways in which the left is actually authoritarian – how exactly is that either “misdirecting” or “whataboutism?”Report
To what laundry list would you be referring?Report
I actually thought you were referring to *this* discussion in your piece. I didn’t realize how popular a topic it is!
https://ordinary-times.com/2021/11/11/nevertrumpers-must-fork-the-gop/#commentsReport
Indeed I was. You got me thinking . . . .Report
I’m gonna chime in with the other commenters and agree that Authoritarianism exists everywhere but rather than try and measure the hearts of any group against a feather it’s better to stop trying to divine their souls and look at actions. It’s not enormously hard to find stirrings and knee jerk reflexes that one can try and point at within the Academy that’s pretty authoritarianism when it comes to the Democratic Party, the actual political instrument of the left, the evidence for authoritarian behavior is very few and far between. The majority of what little is available is stuff that libertarians alone would call authoritarian and that’d pass without much murmur when done by Republicans. The GOP, of course, is suffering from a much larger and more visible authoritarian problem.Report
You’d think that’s glaringly obvious, but right above you there is reference to a “laundry list” of authoritarian things the left is alleged to do. I mean, It doesn’t get more dictatorial then the Governor of Florida – who claims a p[political allegiance that is supposedly hyper supportive of private sector capitalism – signing a law banning private corporations from imposing vaccine mandates, even though statistically a company will shell out much more money for unvaccinated people because private insurance is raising rates, and because such people are almost uniformly the people being hospitalized and dying (which also has economic impacts).Report
Well, to be fair, if one admits state level political activity it may be that you can rope in a lot more authoritarian to authoratarianish behavior on the part of Democrats. State level politics can run a pretty wide gamut. But on the federal level it’s very difficult to find Democratic Party actors who are behaving in even remotely the same authoritarian ball game as Republican ones.Report
I chose that governor as an example because he’s being cast a Trump with a nicer veneer so that if rump doesn’t run in 2024 he will.
You are correct about the national level though.Report
He has been cast as a Trump with a nicer veneer by people who are looking to discredit him. It’s not working.
Desantis signs a bill that was passed by the Florida assembly to protect individual rights. Absolutely none of that is authoritarian. It’s quite the opposite.
An actual example of authoritarians would be to use the King of California who just signed an Executive Order to extend his own emergency powers another 6 months.
https://www.ksbw.com/article/gavin-newsom-emergency-powers-resign/38239450#Report
Cause China, and Russia, and every tin pot dictator in South America never had compliant legislatures that did the same sort of thing? So if Congress passed a bill saying you can’t ever get a job anywhere in the private sector unless you are vaccinated and boosted you’d be ok with that?Report
Of course not. That would be tyranny of the majority in action. It’s why we have the bill of rights, the Constitution and a Supreme Court.
But if you can explain why you think your Desantis example is authoritarian, I’m genuinely interested in your argument because I don’t see one.
Again, elected legislature passes a bill. It’s signed by the elected executive into law. It protects the liberty of the individual against corporations seeking to compel individuals under the threat of dismissal. What am I missing?Report
Plenty of people who work are compelled by their bosses to do things they dislike or don’t agree with daily under threat of dismissal.
Why is the liberty of the unvaccinated employeesmore important than the liberty of vaccinated workers not to deal with non-vaccinated co-workers?Report
Florida is not stopping any individual from getting vaxxed, getting boosters, wearing masks… but, before we devolve into a vax debate, please tell me how Desantis signing this pro-choice bill, passed by the FL legislature, into law, is authoritarian.Report
It’s a pro-plague bill.Report
LOL. ok.Report
Also, it’s interesting to bring up Joe McCarthy without mentioning FDR who, by any objective criteria, was the most authoritarian President in US history. A man who imprisoned an ethnic group at the stroke of a pen and tried to unilaterally pack the Supreme Court to defang his political opposition, to name two things off the top of my head. He’s also the President that generated a bipartisan consensus to amend the Constitution to add the 22nd Amendment. He is the closest thing this country has ever had to an imperial Presidency.
Anyway, I’m personally not much interested in the score-keeping involved in attempting to determine which “side” is more authoritarian at any given moment. Absent objective criteria that can be consistently and neutrally evaluated, it’s an exercise in motivated reasoning. In my view, it’s better to just oppose authoritarianism generally and not play “yes but the other side is worse” games.
And I think both the right and left in this country are authoritarian far too often. You can see it in how they flip-flop on Executive power depending on which President holds office.Report
To be completely transparent I agree with you on FDR’s incarceration of Japanese Americans. It makes all his other progressive ideas difficult to support.
Both parties are quite consistent on this from – each uses the executive powers aggrandized by the other and each complains about the other doing so.Report
“…it’s better to just oppose authoritarianism generally and not play “yes but the other side is worse” games.”
This, right here.Report
Somewhat tangential but it’s hilarious to call FDR the most authoritarian Prez ever. He wouldn’t even top every Prez from GW through the early 1900’s. And you are correct about FDR being hella wrong about Japanese internment. But slavery, Jim Crow, trt of Native Americans etc were all full bore way before FDR.Report
FDR imprisoned the Japanese by decree. He did a lot of things solely on his own authority. One other example is his use of a WWI law prohibiting trade with the enemy to issue Executive orders criminalizing the possession of gold and silver. The main reason he wanted to pack the SCOTUS was to stop the court from blocking his actions.
The key to him being an authoritarian is the aspect of him acting unilaterally and trying to increase his ability to act unilaterally.
As bad as they were, Jim crow, the treatment of Native Americans, etc. were not the result of unilateral Presidential action, but the whole government to include the Congress. Jackson’s “trail of tears” was enabled by legislation. Slavery and Jim Crow were legal, not the product of Executive decree.
And in the 1930’s, authoritarianism was quite popular. A lot of elites openly called for FDR to assume dictatorial powers to address the Great Depression right after he was first elected and there was even a bill introduced in the House to essentially do that. Fortunately, it didn’t go anywhere and the fervor for FDR to be an actual dictator faded.Report
A lot of elites wanted that outcome because people were literally dying on their doorsteps and they didn’t want to be held accountable for crashing the economy in 1929. Not unlike now actually.
As I note above many of the actions of authoritarian dictators are enabled by legislation or legislative acquiescence. History shows that most authoritarian regimes are propped up by legislators. It doesn’t make them any less authoritarian.Report
Well okay. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Over seeing slavery, Jim Crow and genocide seem far far worse. It’s not like Japanese detention wasn’t popular. An organized system that disenfranchised and enslaved millions isn’t less authoritarian because the leg signed off on it.Report
I agree that slavery, Jim Crow and genocide were far worse. But the definition of authoritarianism isn’t about how bad the outcome of government action is. An autocratic regime and a democratic state can both do terrible things, but only the autocratic regime is authoritarian.
A democracy doing terrible things doesn’t turn it into an authoritarian state. By the same token, an autocracy that does nice and popular things doesn’t mean that government isn’t an authoritarian state.Report
If Congress had passed legislation authorizing the camps, and 5 SCOTUS justices agreed, would it have been any less authoritarian?Report
Yes, it would have been less authoritarian. That would not have made it any more moral or right or correct, however.Report
It seems rather arbitrary, and doesn’t do any work to help us understand.
Maybe its more helpful to sort them into authoritarian executives, versus authoritarian regimes.
For example, Xi is an authoritarian executive who is amassing power to himself at the expense of the legislature.
Wheras Iran is an authoritarian regime, where the ruling body of religious mullahs, legislature, and executives wield undemocratic power, but no single figure holds all the power.
In your example, FDR was an authoritarian executive with a weak legislature, while the antebellum state governments were authoritarian regimes.
I think its a debatable assertion, but at least points us toward a productive exchange.Report
Whether a government or leader is authoritarian doesn’t depend on outcomes – it’s about power and how it is collected, distributed, and how representative it is.
Like I noted to Greg above, “A democracy doing terrible things doesn’t turn it into an authoritarian state. By the same token, an autocracy that does nice and popular things doesn’t mean that government isn’t an authoritarian state.”
So yes, FDR was (IMO) the most authoritarian President because he concentrated power on himself and the Executive more than any other President before or since. He was able to do things no other President has done or would dare to do. And he sought to usurp Constitutional obstacles that prevented him from exercising even more authority which is definitionally an authoritarian move.
That a lot of what he did turned out to be good and popular (and a lot of it was also was very bad), isn’t really relevant in determining how authoritarian he was.
The example of the Japanese internment is relevant to the question of his authoritarian tendencies because it was something he had the power to do unilaterally. The power of one man to order the imprisonment of American citizens and deny them basic civil rights is what is authoritarian.
By contrast, a pre-Civil War President had no such authority – not even close. No President prior to FDR had anything close to the power and authority that FDR did. In fact, the federal government was generally much weaker. The fact that slavery existed at that time doesn’t change that.Report
Authoritarianism does, indeed, include some of the things FDR did, but there is one thing authoritarianism requires that FDR did not have: Not having free elections.
As long as you have elections that are free (And nothing impedes elections in some other way, like restrictions on political speech or locking up of political opponents or something, let’s not quibble over what ‘free elections’ technically means…elections under FDR were basically the same as any other time), you don’t really have authoritarianism.
Now, it’s possible to make the argument FDR is the _most_ authoritarian present in history without saying he implemented it fully, but I actually feel that’s a pretty important distinction. Inability to change leadership is basically the _defining_ trait of authoritarianism.
We’ve really only had one president we’ve had problems getting rid of, and it wasn’t FDR.
—
Also, you are making a bunch of assumptions about the legality of things.
Andrew Jackson violated a direct Supreme Court ruling by unconstitutionally removing the Cherokee from Georgia by blatantly lying about their leadership signing a new treaty, for example. (That was the ruling that he infamously dared them to enforce, although instead of directly opposing that he just _pretended_ he’d gotten permission.)
Don’t assume that just because things happened and everyone let them happen that they were legal.Report
If Andy was talking about Authoritarian systems, you might have a point. But he was talking about leaders with an authoritarian bent, which clearly FDR had.Report
“Now, it’s possible to make the argument FDR is the _most_ authoritarian present in history without saying he implemented it fully”
That’s exactly the argument I made. For example, I did state in another comment that “FDR was (IMO) the most authoritarian President because he concentrated power on himself and the Executive more than any other President before or since. ”
Note that I never claimed the US as a country was authoritarian.Report
To address both those comments: No.
To be an authoritarian leader, you have to, in some manner, keep power, or attempt to keep power, in an illegitimate manner. That is the most important part of the premise.
Otherwise what you are isn’t authoritarian.
I’m not saying it’s good to trample over how the government works, but that doesn’t make you authoritarian. Authoritarians must also restrict opposition in _some_ manner.
Nothing was stopping FDR from being removed from power. Both in being voted against and other methods.
He was popular enough to keep office, and yes, I am aware that authoritarians can be ‘popular enough’ merely by controlling channels of communication and threatening any emerging opposition. But FDR, again, did not do that. (If anything, channels of communication vastly expanded under him thanks to tech advances, aka, radio’s spread. FDR’s administration was quite possibly the first one that ordinary citizens were even vaguely informed about the general doings of.)
As for a distinction between an authoritarian system and an authoritarian leader…yeah, I guess there is one, but I was just arguing about an authoritarian leader.
In fact, the idea of an authoritarian system shows just how much the idea of defining authoritarianism as exceeding ‘legality’ is nonsense. Everything done in North Korea is legal. How can the system be operating outside the law?! The system is authoritarian because of one fact: It is built to keep no one from opposing it.
We actually have had something in US history that might be an authoritarian in power, and for once I’m not talking about Trump. (Which was just a failed attempt.)
It depends on how much you believe the ‘blackmailing politicians’ conspiracy theory about J. Edgar Hoover and if presidents were actually afraid to remove him.Report
You are insisting on a perfect fit to the definition, when it was clear by his language that Andy was fitting to a spectrum.
Stop being pedantic. It makes you look like an ass.Report
No, I’m not insisting on ‘perfect fit’, I’m arguing with his definition of authoritarian. I argue it requires a minimum requirement of ‘electorial interference’. (And other things also.)
To quote Wikipedia: In an influential 1964 work,[4] the political scientist Juan Linz defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:
1) Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
2) Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat “easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency.”
3) Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
4) Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.[5][6]
Andy focused on #4, which is 100% true for FDR. And maybe #2, I can see the claim, I won’t argue it.
But you also need some level of #1 and #3 (Which I was grouping as one thing) them to call something authoritarianism. I’m not going to argue how much, but you need _some_ level of it. Some reason the leadership or system cannot just be replaced via normal democratic political process.
And FDR completely fails that requirement. He cannot be the ‘most authoritarian’, because he was not authoritarian.
The term Andy wants is ‘most lawless president’ or something. We really need to not water down ‘authoritarian’, it’s an actual specific form of government or leadership.Report
“Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.”
I’ll just leave this here.Report
You think that censoring foreign communication during a war is _political_?
You realize that foreign nationals actually don’t have the right to American political speech _currently_, right? They are currently barred from participating in the American political system, often from doing things that qualify as ‘free speech’. Just ask them about campaign contributions, or rules about having to register as a foreign agent when lobbying.
Could this executive order go too far in censorship? Yes, it could have. Is there some argument for free speech rights that should exist even during a war? Sure. Did this office go too far? I honestly have no idea.
But is it _political supression_, and/or is it attempting to interfere with an _election_? No. Really obviously no.
Because American politics isn’t coming _from_ foreign nations to start with, or going to them.Report
DUDE IT IS LITERALLY CALLED THE BOARD OF CENSORSHIP HOW CAN YOU STILL BE TRYING TO WIN THIS ONE JESUS H TAPDANCIN’ CHRISTReport
…the discussion is not, in any manner, about censorship? It’s about lack of free elections.
I said authoritarian requires election interference, or political interference that in some way results in unfair elections. Or, to point back to Juan Linz, it require ‘limited political pluralism’ and ‘minimal political mobilization’. Which admittedly is a bit of ‘I will know it when I see it’ and ‘How much is too much’, I won’t argue it’s completely objective.
And I will freely admit that censorship _can_ do that, that’s how Turkey is working right now! You can’t have real elections if the entire media is lying to people and no challenger is able to get their message across. It doesn’t matter how free and honest the physical election process, and counting of ballots are, is if the entire electorate thinks every other name on the ballot wants to kill them or whatever lies have been made up.
But the Board of Censorship did not, in any manner, interfere in elections or the political process of America. The normal political process of America doesn’t involve foreign communications to any noticeable extent, and thus censoring of foreign communications would not impact it in any manner.
You may think what FDR did was out of bounds, but we are not looking for ‘out of bounds’, we are looking for ‘political interference’.
—
Although, incidentally: FDR didn’t claim any new power there, and this isn’t even vaguely out of bounds. The US government has always claimed the right to block and intercept foreign communications. And still does! The Post Office can open all mail entering or leaving the country and decide if it should be allowed through: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1583
This power is pretty well established, constitutionally.
And at that point in time, under Olmstead v. United States, a warrant wasn’t needed to intercept phone conversations, so they were treated as _less_ protected than mail. The FBI can, and did, randomly spy on them.
So this isn’t an example of FDR seizing power, this is FDR merely creating a Board of Censorship to be in charge of using his _existing_ power in multiple places, instead of, say, the Post Office being in charge of what mail should be filtered.Report
And this is the point where you call me a hypocrite or make-up nonsense instead of addressing the actual claim I made:
FDR does not cross that threshhold, or even vaguely make motions in that direction! Nothing he did whatsoever was in the direction of manipulating elections. Having a Board of Censorship, no matter how much that name outrages you, doesn’t make that true.
And it really is just the name that sounds outrageous…monitoring and blocking foreign communications makes perfect sense during a war…or it did until tech got to the level that it no longer works, but it made sense back then. And was certainly permissible for the government to do. It’s not something that anyone would even raise an eyebrow to _except_ for the name.Report
It should be pointed out that authoritarians are generally very very popular and can win elections.
Hollywood likes to depict them as drab dystopias where everyone is oppressed but in fact only a minority usually is. The regimes which form the core definition of authoritarianism- Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Not-see Germany were unique and wildly atypical.
Far more common are the banana republics and minor kleptocracies where there are no killing fields or gulag, but just petty corruption and routine thuggery.Report
Argentina was a banana republic with killing fields, a gulag of sorts and a wildly popular dynastic dictatorship.Report
You’d think that left-wingers would be more libertarian.
It must be because they’re secretly right-wing, if they’re not.
This would be a good litmus test.Report
There’s only one party you can be pretty much read out of for criticizing a guy. And he’s not even a guy people in general like or respect; he’s just supremely powerful and vindictive as hell. When he was in power he did his best to circumvent the law and rule by decree; fortunately, his best wasn’t very good, though he got better at it as he went along, e.g appointing fewer people with minds of their own and more flunkies. When he lost the election, he tried to win it by decree; you can also get read out of his party for mentioning that.
He’s very popular within his party, hence the fear of criticizing him. Does that make that party more authoritarian than one that doesn’t adore a would-be dictator?Report
But you see, some students at a college somewhere said mean things about a former NYT columnist on Twitter, so that’s proof free speech is dead, Mike.Report
Texas recently passed a bill to deny a constitutional right, specifically designed to sidestep judicial review. This was cheered by one side. Are they authoritarian?Report
I don’t recall abortion being one of our constitutional rights but – YES – The Texas law is a legit example of GOP authoritarianism. Total work around nonsense.
Luckily it will be struck down by the SC for being unconstitutional.Report
Roe v. Wade was decided on a right to privacy (which admittedly is inferred) not the right to an abortion.Report
If the right to privacy doesn’t extend to other areas, it’s not *THAT* illogical to see it as a “right to an abortion” instead of a “right to privacy”.Report
It does indeed extend to matters other than abortion. That’s just the area where it’s most controversial over the last several decades.Report
Of course, given how much the SCOTUS has eroded the 4th (which seems to me the OG Right to Privacy), one can wonder how much of a right to privacy is left.Report
That’s the one area where I miss Scalia.Report
I’m not thinking of any Supreme Court cases that made an appeal to any rights retained by the people due to emanations from penumbras.
The stuff that comes first and foremost to mind is stuff like Kyllo v. United States which was based on the 4th rather than a right to privacy. Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the Expectation of Privacy but it says:
It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems (see privacy law).
Now, dig this: As someone who believes in a right to privacy (like, to the point where my beliefs are fringe), I like seeing when the right to privacy shows up here or there.
But there are a *LOT* of areas where it is not assumed on the part of the government. Like, it’s just *NOT*. The fact that it extends out to abortion is nice, I guess… but I wish that the government would spend more time contemplating penumbras.Report
I think the error you’re making perhaps is an expectation that the courts are going to do the heavy lifting with constitutional holdings, when what they really do is draw the lines on the edge cases. Now there are other precedents on privacy (Roe comes from a line involving contraception) and still others involving the press and state surveillance.
The real fight is in federal and state statutes and regs from HIPAA, GLBA, and various FTC rules to stuff like the CCPA in California. If citizens want broader protections (and we should) the way to get there is through civic engagement. Things are how they are IMO less because the courts aren’t stepping in to save us than because we ourselves as a citizenry are ambivalent or ignorant about the issues.Report
Oh, I don’t expect them to. I expect them to *NOT*. I expect them to nibble at the edges and make people defend the idea of having a right to privacy instead of making the powerful defend the ability and willingness to dig through someone else’s business.
That’s one of the reasons I acknowledge my beliefs are pretty fringe.
It’s the whole “do you have the right to X?” versus “does that other guy over there have the right to X?” question. You’ll get no shortage of “Yes, absolutely!” answers to the former. The latter gets speeches that explain “Well, you have to understand…”Report
Roe v. Wade holds exactly that.
I hope the SC strikes it down. The Fifth Circuit is fine with it.Report
Has Freddie written something recently about where he sees this leftist authoritarianism going? Yes he has!
Anyway, I read essays like “the thing you’ve been noticing does not exist!” as a movement being on its back foot, rather than being on its front.Report
You’d think the Substack money, NYT editorial gig, and support as every right-winger on Twitter’s new favorite Marxist would make Freddie a little more happy, but alas. Until every person who dunked on him on Twitter, or who didn’t immediately forgive him does so, I guess Freddie will continue to complain about wokeness, all because there are aspects of the Left that doesn’t center non-woke white dudes like him.
When David Brooks is more sanguine about the actual levels of terribleness between the right and the left, maybe people can question how much of a leftist you even are anymore. In a lot of ways, Freddie & Glenn Greenwald are two peas in a pod – still more upset over blog and Twitter arguments than actual rising fascism.Report
I’ve heard that when Freddie changed his medication, he gained a lot of weight.
Physiognomy is real, I guess.Report
Psh, massively unfair to Freddie and inexcusable too considering that most of his substack stuff is free to read.
Freddies comments regarding his personal beefs with the twitterati seem fair to me but I will concede that I am deeply biased against twitter and have known of Freddie for ages so my personal opinions may be slanting my views.
Freddies critique of wokeness, on the other hand, is enormously salient, impersonal and well-argued from a class first leftist/Marxist point of view. Boiling it down to “I guess Freddie will continue to complain about wokeness, all because there are aspects of the Left that doesn’t center non-woke white dudes like him.” Seems so tin eared to me that I can only assume you don’t read what he writes at all and that is surprising because I think you’re better than that.Report
I don’t read Freddie, but in the quoted passage above I’m struck by his observation that the forces of social justice represent the Order side of things while their opponents represent the Liberty side of things.
I don’t disagree with that, in fact I share the notion.Report
I don’t recall if Freddie subscribes to the observation that the social justice movement represents the new Victorians or not. I do think, Chip, that if you read him you’d find a lot you agreed with. You and he share a LOT of leftist sensibilities and I think you’d have trouble disagreeing with his principled, practical and consequentialist critiques of woke.Report
The issue is, both Chip & I beleive that economic & social justice are equally as important, while Freddie has repeatedly made the same claims that so many anti-woke people do, that the fact that corproations have embraced diversity and BLM means those movements are false movements pushed by those in power to stop the obvious alliance of the working classes that was right around the corner until evil identity politics got in the way.Report
I think the critiques are more than identity politics is an enormously cheap date in terms of policy; electorally poisonous and, worst of all, fake in that it’s an ideology manufactured in highly educated circles and foisted on actual minorities who don’t actually like it (see Latinx for instance).
And on those charges identarians tend to change the subject, personalize and critique the identity of the person making the charges instead of addressing the critiques. Which makes your comment below extra perfect.Report
When you see it as an aesthetic criticism instead of a moral criticism, it becomes more coherent.Report
Yes, yes, if only some newspapers hadn’t used LatinX, there’d be no problems. Come on, this is silliness. Also, there are minorities who use LatinX, and even if a majority of them don’t, I highly doubt they’ve turned away from the Democratic Party for that reason.
What’s actually happening is yes, socially conservative non-white people are slowly moving over to the GOP. That would happen, even if nobody used Latinx ever again, and the Democrat’s only talked about health care.
I also think there are ton of ‘identity politics’ that is not a cheap date at all, and I think it’s a good thing that LGBT folk, non-white people, etc. are more comfrortable at corporate workspaces, because the revolution isn’t happening anytime soon, and if that makes me a traitor to the cause, I suppose Commisar DeBoer can put me against the wall.
There are criticisms to make about the way people ignore actual polling of non-white people on various social issues, but I doubt those same polls mean non-white people agree w/ Freddie’s economic views, but yet, nobody is saying Freddie should shut up about those views.Report
In about 15 minutes, LatinX people become “White”.
Things will get interesting at that point.Report
I mean, as Jamelle Bouie (I think) has said, the history of American politics has never been white vs. everybody else coalitions, but rather pro-black politically vs. anti-black politically coalitions, so the current moderate shift of Asian and Hispanic voters isn’t a surprise (and yes, you can be African-American and in the anti-black coalition).Report
Bouie is correct but it does create a problem because it flattens things out that leads to a lack of nuance often enough.
From what I have read, changing the admissions standards at select high schools has not really increased black enrollment. It has plummeted Asian enrollment but helped a lot of mediocre white kids. I can see why Asian people would be angry about this.Report
I’ve been reading Freddie for quite a while.
His main complaint is that all the social justice stuff is distracting from getting actual work done that improves people’s lives. Canceling people for wrongthink on Twitter, or insisting strongly that issues must be framed using certain language and berating anyone who thinks otherwise are, in his view, obstacles to doing things that produce tangible results.
The other thing Freddie doesn’t like is the racial essentialism in a lot of liberal circles. He is very much an old-school socialist that cares primarily about class and believes that is much more important in terms of effective change than the kind of intersectional identity-based politics that’s become dominant in progressive circles.
You can think of Freddie kind of like the equivalent of a #nevertrumper but on the left. He’s found that the people who used to be his allies have moved on and now they hate him for not playing ball with the new dogma.
I personally like Freddie because he’s honest, especially about his personal struggles, and he’s willing to engage honestly with people like me – ie. people who are pretty skeptical of socialism, class-based or otherwise.Report
Someone should remind Freddie that Bread and Roses dominates DSA leadership at the national level and in many of the bigger locals, too. Not that DSA is the end-all, be-all of the left, but they are the largest left group, and the closest to liberals/progressives ideologically, so that dominance is an important data point against his general view of the “left.”
Also, nice William James avatar.Report
Thanks! I do like the Avatar and while I have my disagreements with pragmatism as a philosophy, I think it is something that is very short supply these days.
Also, I appreciate the perspective on DSA, etc. I do not really follow the dynamics of groups on the left. I’ve just noticed that Freddie and the few other older-school socialists I’m aware of have fallen out and think they are now heretics on the left.Report
Freddie, to be fair, has always been a misfit on the online left, hated by liberals, Marxists, and anarchists alike. I don’t know what he’s doing in the streets these days, but he was once a respected organizer in his area.
And I’m a big James fan, even if I’m not a philosophical pragmatist (or a political one, for that matter).Report
That’s certainly true and it feels odd for me to speak up in Freddie’s defense since his economic ideology is, not just a little but miles, to the left of my own. This nonsense about him being some kind of insert-term-ist of some variety because he criticizes wokeness too much, though, is just risible.Report
The thing that Freddie has a lot of trouble with is that he grew up hearing that Conservatives were Racist Evil and that Conservatives will say certain things are true, and he’s finding himself saying that those same things are true, but he can’t handle the notion that this means he’s Conservative. (Which he is.)Report
This is one of those places where the meaning of “conservative” in the American context because somewhat complicated. Freddie is culturally conservative to an extent, though he’s obviously pro-LGB, and to some extent T), and much of his book is about racial equality in a way that would not fit with American conservatism at any point in his lifetime (or ever). However, he’s also a socialist, with a long history of leftist organizing (anti-war, pro-union, with an openly revolutionary socialist politics). So calling him a conservative, in the American context, makes very little sense.Report
He just wrote an essay on the whole “Marxism” thing.
Get this: he thinks that his interpretation is the right one and the one of other self-identified Marxists is wrong.
Given that mine is correct and his is wrong, this makes me angry. But I also know that it would be funny if it weren’t so vitally important when other people were wrong.Report
Yeah, good, very basic stuff. I’d quibble here and there, but so would any leftist with any other’s.
I don’t know how orthodox Freddie’s Marxism (or is he a M-L?) is, but it’s revolutionary, and that alone makes it non-conservative in any meaningful sense, even if it’s more or less conservative than some other breeds of contemporary Marxism. Being Marxist at all makes it non-conservative in the American sense.Report
From the non-Marxist ‘third-way’ Catholic perspective, I thought it was a liberating article that I’d love for more young people who – as Freddie says – think they are Marxist but aren’t would think on.
It would open up many more doors.Report
My only quibble with his post is that it limits “Marxist” to an extremely narrow view of Marxism, one that even, say, Engels didn’t adhere to by the time of Marx’s death. It’s like saying your evolutionary theory isn’t Darwinian if it includes DNA, because Darwin said nothing about DNA.
Most contemporary Marxism has had to confront both the failures of Marxist revolutions (e.g., in Germany in the aftermath of WWI), of the only attempts at anything resembling a Marxist organization of society, as well as the various versions of Marx-inspired communism that have come about (in Eastern Europe, in Asia, in Cuba, in South America) and the reality of new types of socialism (social democracy, market socialism, etc.), along with radical changes to the way capitalist systems are organized (e.g., in trying to working out what the hell still counts as the working class in late capitalism), and various realities of our world that Marx either didn’t touch on, didn’t know about, or didn’t spend much time on (e.g., colonialism and imperialism).
This is why, for example, saying Marxists aren’t pessimists is ridiculous; a substantial portion of even relatively orthodox Marxists have been pessimistic since the failure of the German revolution, and if not then, then after the descent into Stalinism in the Soviet Union, and if not then, then the crushing of the workers revolutions in Eastern Europe in the 1950s, and if not then, then the fall of the Soviet Union… at some point, they’ve all become pessimists, and developed fairly complex theories of both capitalism and socialism to deal with those failures.
Freddie’s description of Marxism there is in that sense extremely limited, and he’s in the extreme minority, especially today, among people who call themselves Marxist and know everything he says there about Marx.
That’s not to say that the Stalinists on Twitter are Marxist in any meaningful sense, but I think most people who call themselves Marxists these days, at least in my experience, have a pretty good idea what they’re talking about, even if they don’t agree with Freddie on every point there.Report
There is a lot of general disagreement. I spend some time on a few socialist subs on Reddit and the infighting between various self-described socialists and even Marxists is pretty vast. You’ve got everything from “the government does stuff” socialists all the way up to tankies.
As one who isn’t a socialist, it makes it difficult to determine who the “real” socialists or Marxists are.Report
Their inability to establish solidarity is why they will never triumph, comrade.Report
Yep, it’s the same problem on the libertarian side – they’re usually too busy infighting to be any kind of meaningful political force.Report
Somewhat tangential, I saw an interesting comment somewhere to the effect that no matter how different and varied economic and political systems are, the status quo is always called “capitalism ” while imagined revolutionary system is always “socialism”.
Like, the economic and political system of 1840 Germany is very different than 2021 Germany but they are both “capitalism”.
Or like how 2021 China is either capitalist or socialist depending on whether they are making us angry at the moment.Report
There’s certainly an ethnocentric/cynical political component to it. I also think there’s an increasing inadequacy of trying to describe 21st century economies in what are fundamentally 19th century terms.Report
Your quibble is what I thought was good.
That is, Marx’s observations are trenchant but also historically contingent and eventually freighted with so many things that aren’t ‘Marxist’ that skinnying him down to a moment in time would free up head-space that’s loaded with the other stuff that has been freighted in.
I can understand from a leftist perspective that the goal isn’t to ‘freight in’ stuff, but to build upon the thought organically, adapt, and grow and yadda yadda… but I think here Freddie makes a good point that while this may be the philosophical goal of “The Left” they can’t unpack the cart after the fact – not politically.
So I’d rather un-pack Marx to free him from Marxism… not because I think he got it right, but because he’s too small a figure to bear the weight of all the freight.Report
There’s too much import given to fashion and novelty.
In recent decades, that phenomenon seems to have accelerated.
Any attempt to circle back to what Marx actually observed and said sounds downright reactionary.
One phenomenon I mocked in the church of my youth involved the Wedding at Cana and being told “I know in my heart that Jesus would not have turned water into wine” (but, instead, into a festive grape drink).
This is that. People know in their hearts what Marx would and would not have said.
Forcing them to look at the text borders on abuse.Report
In many senses, Marx remains more radical than the vast majority contemporary socialists, on issues like rights (Freddie is wrong here), traditional social structures, and even property (Freddie is wrong here, too). I’m fine with relegating Marx’s more concrete ideas to, if not the dustbin of history, then at least the dustbin of historical inspirations and influences, but even as at best an unorthodox or “late” Marxist, I think you overall structure of his critique of capitalism remains invaluable, and I think it is this belief that makes many people call themselves Marxists whom Freddie would say are not. Pretty much everyone knows that they mean. Freddie’s problem is that he’s a leftist who’s no longer on the left, and he’s no longer on the left in no small part because it’s spent 20+ years telling leftists things like, “You’re not a Marxist if…”Report
I’m not talking about what Marx *SAID*.
I’m talking about the squares who insist that other people read what Marx said.
Instead of, you know, letting other people spirit channel Marx and let Marx speak through them.Report
I hate that I can’t like posts like we’re on Twitter, but yes, I respect that view.Report
I’ve read the vast majority of Freddie’s Substack (at least the free stuff), and I haven’t been convinced. I agree Freddie has a view, that if all those terrible, silly, woke activists of any creed and color listened only to people like him, Occupy would’ve never fell apart, Bernie would’ve won, if only those silly activists would’ve realized that economics is the only thing that matters, so if you need to ban abortion to get M4A passed, so be it.
I see the very personal grudges bleeding through every single of Freddie’s articles on wokeness, so much so that his top Substack comment on his recent anti-woke NYT editorial was being happy that somebody from Lawyers, Guns, and Money was upset about it.
I think there are good left-wing criticisms of the bad part of wokeness (some of the DEI training stuff) from example, Eric Levitz (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/critical-race-theory-crt-schools-liberals-equity-consultants.html) or hell, even Matthew Yglesias, because their articles about it don’t have the underlying message that’s somebody is still upset that some woke 24-year-old activist called them privileged in a DSA mmeting, or whatever convinced the wokeness is the end of the world.Report
Michelle Goldberg made a similar observation in the Times. The thing is that talk is cheap and it is easy for companies and corporations to do this kind of stuff as a concession than have substantive change.
My partner works in tech with a lot of earnest 20 and 30 somethings so this can be a sop from management (like white people using Latinx when very few hispanics use the term).
Substantive justice is hard, messing with AP classes or advising people on terminology is easy.Report
Ummm… Saul.. for a guy who allegedly disagrees with Freddie you sure agree with Freddie a lot.Report
If all Freddie did was criticize DEI or other silly stuff, there’d be no issue. But, he doesn’t do that. Freddie has never written an article as friendly to activist as Levitz did above.Report
Well speaking personally I think Freddie freaks out more about CRT and identarianism than is actually warranted but his substantive complaints about how its excesses and poses are actively setting back more substantive (and more beneficial to BIPOC minorities) policy changes strikes me as entirely reasonable. But that’s his nature- very hot or cold.Report
I don’t think I do. I think it is silly but I am going to punch back about a moral panic from the right-against this stuff rather than tut tut my side.
Race has always trumped (see what I did there) class in the United States and any analysis of the various conflicts in the United States needs to look at race. It shouldn’t cause a moral panic when Pete Buttgieg points out that the overpasses on the Long Island Expressway were built in a way that prevented buses from going through and those buses often contained black and brown people looking to get to Jones Beach or somewhere else fun. Adults should be able to discuss these things without their senses of self feeling attacked.
But it does seem to place millions and millions of Americans on a defensive and into a reactionary lash back. The Walker Bragmans and DeBoer’s of the world would just go along with that. I would not.Report
Ironically Jaybird and Erik Loomis have each done a pretty good job of illustrating how race is a tender spot even among self described leftists, particularly when it comes to things like schools and crime.
So as it turns out, a Nationalist Socialist party is, like, an actual thing that can exist.Report
Maybe we could prevent the rise of this kind of national socialism by ramping up the culture war to 11? Quickly! To the Cabaret!Report
Another thing is that I am able to distinguish from my mild annoyance from time to time from “argh the woke are out of control and just the forces of order.”
Plus Freddie comes from the never forgive a grudge school of journalism.Report
I think that you should personalize it. Don’t pay *ANY* attention to what he’s saying. Just take it to him directly.
Maybe, if you pressured Substack, you could get them to drop him as a writer? “You care more about money than about Truth!”, you may be able to argue.
Use your moral authority to shame them. Eliminate the voices that are so very toxic to public discussion.Report
I agree with Jesse and Chip. Does woke have excesses? Sure, what doesn’t? But Freddie is part of the contingent of lefties that seem to hate the Democratic Party more than they hate Republicans and fascists and somehow turned this into a sweet gig as a writers. I think people like Freddie and Bragman and Buening are fully willing to sell out the Democratic platforms on civil rights, voting rights, and abortion because of an outdated view on socialism being rooted in manly, industrial economy. They are a minority view and it should be noted that they have more fans among the right-wing who like to troll than among actual Democrats.Report
Where is this voting rights, abortion and civil rights stuff coming from? I’ve not read a single thing Freddie has ever written suggesting he thinks any of those three should be “sold out” for anything and I’m pretty confident I’ve read everyone outside of twitter than he’s written for decades (except his book, too academic for me). As for disliking the Democratic Party, I mean he is a marxist so disliking the Dems is kind of baked into the cake. But he votes for them and says people should vote for them and not third party loons so, again, where’s the harm?Report
I can only point to Freddie’s words and actions, which include him basically treating the people at 1/6 as a bunch of “clowns” (https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/orange-cheeto-man-bad) , while at the some time, treating every activist he dislikes as a privileged PMC destroying any chance at economic leftism.
So yeah, by whom he criticizes and doesn’t criticize, I can make my own judgments.Report
Ah ok, so you’re inventing the allegations. Good to know, I was quite curious.Report
Anyone whose analysis of American politics stresses class over race should be approached with extreme skepticism.
It may be parochialism, or naivete or plain old ignorance rather than malevolence but in the end it doesn’t matter.
Its not that their opinions can be entirely discarded. Some of them might be insightful and worth reading.
But they are missing the single most explanatory variable in American history and are unable to put together a plausible strategy for us to follow.Report
Exactly, and I say that as someone who _does_, at some level, thinks the root issues are more about class than race…except that the main way that the upper-class hold on to their position is basically by using white supremacy.
Like, I know some people see racism as the root cause, whereas I see it sorta as a deliberately-created primary weapon, but the thing is…it’s probably the most important factor in almost everything in American political history. And thus should be the most important strategic concern. Regardless of where it comes from.
Racism along with other axes of oppression, which _also_ are the tools of the upper class, but, and this is really important: We have to disarm them of those tools if we ever want to win. Disarm them of racism, and sexism, and homophobia, and everything else, and not let them invent new things to hate.
Like, the very first step is to break those things apart, and at that point…we’ve sorta automatically won. That sort of stuff is literally the only reason the right ever wins, under any circumstances.
I think the problem is billionaires formenting this, but I can shout day and night to take their money away and it’s completely pointless if conservatives can get elected running by against, essentially, ‘talking about Black people’.Report
Saul, we’re in the comments to a post arguing that leftist authoritarianism doesn’t exist.
If I were to categorize Freddie, I’d say that he has fans among those who look at the emperor and also see a butt-naked guy.
Actual Democrats are the ones shouting “Such a pattern, what colors! Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!”
And, let me say this again because I don’t think it can be emphasized enough: we’re in the comments to a post arguing that leftist authoritarianism doesn’t exist.Report
I’d object slightly. The lefties and social justice crowd are the ones cheering and being fulsome in their praise. The Democrats, for better and ill, are the ones mostly saying nothing and not rocking the boat.Report
Cheerfully conceded.
(Pity about the emperor’s outfit.)Report
Except the actual OP doesn’t argue that at all . . . .Report
Pardon me. That it’s “not a thing”.
I regret the error and would like to offer a correction to my comment above changing “doesn’t exist” to “not a thing”.Report
Oh, it’s not even “not a thing”; it’s “yeah sure okay maybe it’s a tiny little silly meaningless bit of a thing but just look at how bad THESE OTHER DUDES are!”Report
Freddie has been around a long time, in the trenches (that is, not just writing on the internet) for much of it (going back, at least, to the Iraq war protests in the early Aughts), but when he writes things like this, I still think he’s too young to know what he’s talking about (I believe he and I are roughly the same age, actually). This is not the first time what Freddie laments about “social liberalism” and the immoral reaction it inspires is part of a cycle that pops up repeatedly. For at least the last century or so, though, the social liberalism keeps winning, and its righteousness dies out not because the reaction to it wins, but because the difference between its values and the dominant values of society shrink to the point at which that righteousness is no longer possible. I have little doubt that when we come out the end of this cycle of social liberal righteousness and rebellious anti-progressiveness, society as a whole will be significantly more tolerant on a variety of dimensions. Then we’ll do this all again, because there will still be racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., built into the system, and into various segments of society. And there will be a portion of the left, and a large part of the center, with individualist, (old school) libertarian leanings who’ll freak out when it comes back, and claim it’s ruining the left again, etc., etc.
Granted, I think part of the impulse, on the left, is correct: we fight these battles on cultural fronts because there are no battles we can effectively fight on material fronts, and this is a problem, but they tend to project the problem onto the culture war (seeing it, e.g., as a distraction or a draining of energy), treating it as a cause rather than the effect that it is. This is bad particularly in this moment, when workers are beginning to awake to their power, but that’s a conversation for another day. And frankly, that we’re having it in this thread is kind of a misunderstanding of what authoritarianism is.Report
Yeah, my definition of “authoritarianism” involves more of a hijacking of, if I may wander into Freud, the Superego. Creating wrongthink and punishing people for hinting that they experience it, that’s “authoritarianism”. Worse than that, getting them to police themselves, to police their own thoughts without “the authorities” having to do a goddamn thing, that’s “authoritarianism”.
And alternate universe where the gay Jaybird is typing this comment, he’s written the same thing (though with a greater emphasis on bedroom issues than outside-the-house ones).
And alternate universe where the black Jaybird is typing this comment, he’s written about Redlining and the history of institutional racism that were just part of the fabric that nobody even noticed while they were stamping down on the use of racial slurs and how the left’s Superego fights *HARD* against the use of racial slurs but begins to wax philosophical when it comes to school districts. (Those cops are in a different neighborhood of the brain entirely.) And the ability of the so-called liberal mind to have the cops police broken-windows style over here but leave the CHAZ/CHOP of structural racism alone is an example of “authoritarianism”.
Which means that, yeah, we probably ought to define “authoritarianism”. I think it’s more than passing laws.Report
In an important sense, this is just what society is, though. To that extent, the very existence of a society is authoritarian.
That said, I have a hard time taking seriously the idea that people who try to get others to take existing discrimination and disparities seriously is the same as, say, getting a clinic shut down by harassing and threatening the doctors, staff, and patients, all because the clinic treats transgender youth. The latter is extremely common, and a true threat to society, and hardly discussed by the same folks worried about a bunch of kids overextending concepts like “privilege” or “intersectionality.”Report
Well, the automatic assumption is that “authoritarianism” is “bad”.
And it’s not. Not necessarily. I think I could get away with arguing that, in an iterated game, the second and especially the third order effects of authoritarianism eventually become bad. But that’s a tough concept to communicate.
Especially if we don’t want to define authoritarianism in the first place.Report
Authoritarianism is a marriage of authoritarian policies and authoritarian ideas that produces and normalizes authoritarianism.Report
Do you think it was authoritarianism that the majority view, until the late 80’s/early 90’s that interracial marriage was bad, was basically banned from all media after about 1970, and do you think we’d have a more racially equal society if on every panel discussion about race, 1/2 the people on the panel opposed interracial marriage/Report
Eh, my definition of “authoritarian” involves the cops policing areas where they have no right to be. And so me disapproving of your relationship with your significant other is me policing an area where I have no right to be.
Even if I have a bunch of people agreeing with me that the cops *NEED* to be policing there.
We need strong fourth amendment protections. There are a lot of areas where you shouldn’t bring the police.
No, not even if they have a warrant. (And that’s without getting into the whole “do we trust how warrants are brought to judges who then sign them without reading them?” thing.)
(Of course “what about the children?” is an important question that I don’t have easy answers for. Or even medium answers for.)Report
On the “discussing CRT” thread, Philip and I were talking about government’s role in race relations. My bias is always against government intervention, while he voiced no concerns over it. That’s important to remember when we’re talking about right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism in the US. The American Right has an antigovernment bias, or at minimum an antigovernment wing. The American Left doesn’t really, beyond the anarcho-hippie crowd. An authoritarian system is the natural endpoint of much left-wing thought in a way that isn’t true on the other side.
Consider positive and negative rights. The premise of this country was that we have rights granted us by our nature and our Creator, and those rights limit government. We have rights from things, not rights to things. The progressive movement has promoted the other approach. I’m not claiming that the Republicans have a perfect record in this area, but there is a difference in conceptions of the role of government. Certainly there’s a reluctance to go beyond the basic protection of life and liberty on the right.Report
To play Devil’s Advocate, the Right’s approach to limiting government interference often takes the form of allowing private oppression. So sure, you don’t have Jim Crow, but you also are less able to protect people from the bigotry of people in power.
IMHO, the left is too eager to protect people from every slight, real or imagined; but the right is happy to pretend that only the most egregious offenses require any attention, and their tolerance for egregiousness is higher than I’m often comfortable with.Report
Sure. Neither inclination is balanced, but if we’re talking about authoritarianism as a governmental phenomenon, then it’s easy to see how the left’s thinking would tend toward it. If we’re talking about a general authoritarian mindset, that might be different although language policing suggests that that’s more opportunistic than ideological.Report
All rights are positive rights.
Consider for example, the right to be secure in our property, or our person.
This right only exists when there is a coercive tax regime which establishes a legislative branch which defines what property is and how it is established, then a police force to enforce that decision.
I mean, the very first act of any government is to declare “I am entitled to a piece of your property, and I will distribute this confiscated wealth to agents of the state who will enforce its will.”
The balance between Liberty and Order is always debatable, but the notion of positive and negative rights is fallacious.Report
You’re assuming that government predates rights.Report
Let’s dig a little more into this. Consider:
– freedom of religion
– equality under the law
– freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
– the right to self-defense
How is the notion of positive and negative rights fallacious with reference to these? None of them constitutes a positive right. None of them requires taxes. It’s possible to construct a scenario where a government would need money to enforce them, I guess, but there are a lot of scenarios where it wouldn’t. Those rights themselves are inherent to humans.Report
I think to get at this we need go start with what was going on in the 16th and 17th centuries when these things started to be looked at and written about in ways we would recognize. On the one hand I think Chip is jumping too far ahead in history. Time was that there was birthright nobility that could do whatever they pleased within only the broadest of cultural and religious confines. In that context negative rights make a lot of sense.
But all that happened before we developed the kind of material abundance we have today. Now, I personally tend to shy away from talking about how to handle that abundance and the inequalities we have as a result in terms of ‘rights.’ But I don’t think it’s totally incompatible with the traditional idea of rights as ‘things the government can’t do to you or deprive you of,’ provided one is willing to do the persuasive work of course.Report
Yeah, it’s tough to generalize. We’re at the point *here* where we could take care of everyone *here*, for now. Although since about 2009, we’ve been running at a wartime debt-to-gdp ratio in essentially peacetime. But all other things being equal, we could declare freedom from want as a human right within our borders, for now. I’m very wary about using the term “right” for something contingent, however.
And we’re kind of in a rubber-meets-the-road situation right now. Does Jesse have a right to not be infected by the delta variant? That’s never been asserted before, but it could be seen as an extension of a right to health care. Does that include the right to not be infected by the phi variant? (Bah, gotta go, I have more to say on this theme but I’ve got errands to do.)Report
You are redefining positive and negative rights in a manner which suits your priors.Report
Yeah, Chip should use the original definition was created to suit _other people’s_ priors.
The idea of negative and positive rights is nonsense, especially if ‘ability to forcibly exclude people from land that ownership is asserted over’ is somehow included as a _negative_ right.Report
Yeah, those other people, like Kant.
Negative rights still require action from others to protect the right, not to enforce it. And one of the key duties of government is to protect the rights of citizens. If a property right is defined as having exclusive access to property, then yes, government is obligated to protect that right. If, for instance, you are in Norway, there is a Right to Roam that over-rides certain property rights.
The problem Chip has is not with property rights, per se, but with how the American legal tradition defines those rights.Report
Uh, yes? He is the guy who created the original definitions of rights, to suit his priors, and other people have added to them. Are you arguing that Kant isn’t a person?
…from other citizens, which it does by causing harm to those other citizens by stopping them from ‘violating the rights’ of the first group.
You are begging the question.
We are not talking about what the government is ‘obligated to do’, we are talking about the fact that there is no such thing as negative vs. positive rights.
A ‘negative right’ to not get punched in the face is a ‘positive right’ to stop people from punching people in the face. All rights work by restraining _someone’s_ actions. That’s what a right is, the ability to stop someone else from doing something!
You have just decided that ‘not get punched in the face’ makes inherent sense as a right due to your philosophical priors, so it must be a negative right.
And in that specific case, I quite agree that people should have a right not to get punched in the face, and others should be restricted from doing that, by the government! I just don’t pretend that’s from anything but my own priors of disliking that personally when it happens to me, and thinking society would be rather crappy if people could do that randomly.
Literally every right is actually ‘People are not allowed to do a specific thing and if they do, the government will stop them, using violence if needed’, there is no conceptual or philosophical difference between them, merely practical ones.
There certainly are not two different sorts of rights. And if there were, hell, the ‘right’ to own some land is probably one of the most intrusive rights that has ever existed in human history, the idea that the state can do violence on someone just because a document says that their physical location is controlled by another.Report
Depends on your brand of the right. The old fusionism right had libertarians, social cons and neocons as the three legs of their stool. Only the libertarians would fit into your description above with regards to having an antigovernmental bias. The social cons did, and do, have theocracy as a natural endpoint for their ideologies and the neo-cons endpoint is would probably best be described as some kind of military dominated junta.
It also bears noting that the libertarians have been in incredible decline nationally, and within the GOP especially, for all of this century with Trumps nomination representing an especially acute inflection point in that decline (he got the nod not despite but -because- he hurtled a lot of libertarian nostrums under the bus and he formally ushered a whole new leg of populists and nativists into the right wing coalition).Report
Eh… the Hawks, the Socons, and the Fiscons were the legs of the 80’s. The cousins of the Hawks were the neocons, the Birchers were the cousins of the Socons, and the libertarians were the cousins of the Fiscons.
If you wanted to describe the new legs of the stool as being the libertarians, social cons and neocons, I’d say “maybe online” but… in the analog world, libertarians are crazy scarce.Report
Oh quite so, agreed. The libertarian’s are astonishingly thin on the ground in meat space and always have been, really when it comes to voters. Libertarians outsized voice in debate and online spaces seems to be a result of both their ideological coherence (and the utter ideological implosion of many of their rival right wing fellow travelers) and their great usefulness to and commensurate funding from the very wealthy for securing tax cuts.
The modern right is populists and nativist dominantly with socialcons and republitarianism in the back seat and genuine libertarians sort of hanging off the back end of the u-haul trailer wondering what the heck happened.Report
Here’s what the heck happened: They won on their two biggest examples of “leave me alone”.
Gay Marriage and Weed.
Gay Marriage was won in the Supreme Court. They don’t have to talk about it anymore.
Weed? There’s a slow march towards legalization and we’ve reached the point where it’s baffling that the federal government is still dragging its feet instead of understandable that it would be. The ball has been removed from the hands of the libertarians (the way that gay marriage was) and it’s no longer a libertarian issue.
What’s left? “Hey guys, I think that we should put more effort into Enlightenment attitudes about Freedom of Speech!” Nobody wants that dumb crap.Report
Ayup, when I think of the right wing libertarian positions that were top priority for them from my political awakening through to Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage definitely springs to the forefront of my mind. Achieving that triumph definitely explains why they’ve fallen so out of vogue- they achieved all they sought to achieve.
As a gay man and someone who sees the merit in the devils’ lettuce personally I’m grateful.Report
The old argument was “The Libertarian Train”. Just get on the train and when you get to your stop, get off! Just ride with us until you get to your stop!
And the libertarians are now in “where did everybody go?” territory. The war on drugs has them defending meth, immigration has them defending having open borders, taxes has them sounding like crazy right-wingers, foreign policy still gets accusations of isolationism.
Maybe education is where they’ve got the lowest hanging fruit. “School choice!” and whatnot.
I’d look there if you’re looking for where they’re making the most inroads in the near future.Report
It is just that, and it must be my faulty imagination, but in the halcyon days of my youth the positions on gay marriage from left to right was:
Far left-Marriage is a heteronormative patriarchal instruction of the bourgeois and should be eliminated for everyone.
Liberals- Marriage equality for opposite sex and same sex couples.
Conservatives- Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Libertarians- Government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.
But outside of that I don’t think your analysis is off base. Heck, I’d put the inflection point for libertarian advancement earlier when Clintonomics ascended to domination in the Democratic Party. That was when the GOP started going off the rails to the right in search of something to disagree with him over.Report
I remember a comedian from about 10 years ago making a joke something to the effect of “a gay couple moved next door and started flying the rainbow flag. My house immediately was worth an additional $20k.”Report
Amusing.Report
I don’t know whether to put it down as liberal, conservative, or libertarian.Report
I’d go out on a limb and say it’s comedy.Report
Reactionary, then.Report
Hah!Report
I’m consistently amused by the revisionist history of those who “evolved” on the issue of same sex marriage. As if Ds and Rs didn’t create a veto proof landslide to pass DOMA, as if Clinton didn’t sign it w/o veto anyway (playing both sides) and as if the the Peoples Republic of California didn’t pass Prop 8 only 12 years ago.
Libertarians can’t take credit for gay marriage, that’s SCOTUS, but they can at least claim higher moral ground than almost everyone else.Report
Libertarians can claim the moral high ground over actual advocates of same sex marriage? That’s a new one to me but I think it’s a cute evolution. I always viewed the libertarian cop out regarding SSM as earnestly intended albeit useless.
And, yes, over the past 30 years politics in its messy contortions happened. There’s still no delusion as to which side and party supported SSM and which one opposed (and still opposes) it.Report
Are the libertarians we are talking about not advocates, if not activists?
When did the DNC put SSM on its platform? 2012? Obama didn’t even come out in support! His evolution was a slow one, i guess.
The Libertarians had SSM on its platform in 1972.
Politically speaking, the Libertarian party should get a hell of a lot more credit than the DNC, no?Report
Correction: I conflated gay rights and SSM re libertarian platform. Gay rights was a plank in 1972. SSM wasn’t within the realm of imagination back then. Regardless, the Libertarians were still way ahead of the Dems. They actually opposed DOMA. Now I need to look up when it first was on their platform…Report
A quick google and wiki says the official libertarian party position was and is:
-Section 1.3 “Personal Relationships”:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
-1.6 Parental Rights”:
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.
So basically they believe government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage. A totally fine and defensible libertarian principle but also a cop out since civil marriage was never, ever going to be retired.Report
It’s pretty simple. Liberals and SSM advocates wanted civil marriage to be expanded to include same sex couples. The libertarian position was that government should not be in the marriage business.
The government remains in the marriage business but same sex couples are now permitted in civil marriages. I would, therefore, chalk it up as a major victory for people who’re pro-ssm and (at most) a minor victory for libertarians.
I don’t think libertarians are opposed to gay rights and they have, indeed, been in favor of a variety of gay rights for far longer than either of the two major parties have been. That’s to their credit.Report
IIRC, the old Libertarian view was a bit unconventional. Essentially many Libertarians believed the legal contract part of marriage (ie “civil marriage”) could be unbundled from “marriage” as a social or religious construct.
The result of this unbundling was that the Libertarian position went far beyond mere SSM. The Libertarian position was (and still is for many) that the government should not have any involvement in personal relationships, but also that it should not have the authority to restrict access to legal contracts (ie. civil marriage) based on any arbitrary criteria. So the Libertarian view of “civil marriages” was that any two people of legal age should have access to a legal marriage contract including siblings, friends, whatever.
But of course, that doesn’t really work because society does not unbundle those things.Report
You and I basically agree on this. I confess, I have a soft spot for libertarians.Report
No, it wasn’t. That was the ‘libertarian’ view, the one that libertarians always used to justify inaction, but I’m not sure it was ever the platform of the Libertarian Party. I certainly can’t find it!
Like, same-sex marriage isn’t mentioned in their 1996 or 2000 platform, at all. They say they oppose DADT, and laws banning homosexual conduct, and that is all they say.
In fact, they implicitly _don’t_ want to dismantle marriage, as they say in both ‘We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women.’
…so, if they are against ‘marriage laws which deny the full rights of men and women’, that rather implies there are some marriage laws they _are_ in favor of and they don’t really want to change anything in a grander scope. Again, that’s just an implication, but…no, they were not in favor of dismantling marriage back then. (Although they are _now_.)
The LP is basically lying here, claiming they always supported same-sex marriage since they said the government shouldn’t discriminate against gay people, but that’s absurd revisionism. The Democratic party said exactly the same thing.
The truth is, for over a decade, the main argument was that banning gay marriage _didn’t_ discriminate against gay people, as gay people could have exactly the same sort of marriages as everyone else, a marriage to someone of the opposite gender. The argument was never ‘We get to discriminate against gay people’, it was ‘Our current marriage laws do not discriminate against gay people’.
Like, I was there. I remember the positions.
(Which is why the Surpreme Court hilariously struck the bans down on _gender_ discrimination, not discrimination against gay people. Women were forbidden from marrying the same people as men, ergo, obvious gender discrimination.)Report
If you want to argue that the libertarians didn’t win on gay marriage, they merely agreed with the side that ended up winning on gay marriage, that’s fine.
It doesn’t matter which pony wears the garland of flowers so long as the cart gets to town.
But it remains true that libertarians were left without a whole lot to talk about where a ton of people agreed with either their conclusion or their reasoning to get to their conclusion (with the exception of weed) after SCOTUS gave the victory to the side that the libertarians agreed with.Report
I think we agree. Libertarians deserve credit for being very early on issues that were political non-starters at the time. But they never had the juice to enact change, and in knowing that, the stakes are much lower for them. The other point in here about it being more critique than movement is very valid.Report
The juice to change the subject is the juice to enact change.Report
Yes. The liberals wanted the cart to get into town. Libertarians wanted the cart to get to the town, out the other side of town and on to Libertopolis City on the coast of Freedom Sea.
Libertarians and liberals “succeeded” but to different degrees. Liberals got basically what they wanted to the letter. Libertarians didn’t get what they wanted but they advanced the status quos in the direction of what they wanted. By any objective measure both liberals and libertarians “won”.Report
As I noted over on the CRT thread, I consider libertarianism to be more a critique than a movement. It’s not designed to create an agenda for governing.
If you’re looking around for three equal groups, you’re not going to find the Reagan coalition. But if you talk to socons, you’ll find they hold the Great Society responsible for a lot of our social ills, and if you talk to more nationalist types, you’ll find that the thing they want to defend about America is its limited government. Even with moderate Republicans, the one thing they feel connects them to the party is fiscal concerns. Again, I’m not describing anyone as pure, but just looking at the recent spending bills, that’s the kind of unity you dream of in a party.Report
You and I are in total agreement vis a vis libertarianism. I, also, consider it a highly useful critique but not a particularly solid governing philosophy.
Now it may be that I read different socialcons than you but my understanding is that their critique of the great society was not because they considered it tyrannical but very much the inverse- that by providing impersonal government supports people suddenly had an alternative to support (and iron fisted strictures) of the local religious communities or families. I don’t see how one can interpret that as being naturally anti-authoritarian- especially considering that current socialcon discourse is a debate about whether they should discard liberalism and form their own religiously pure Benedictine enclaves or whether they should discard liberalism and attempt to impose an integralist religiously government authority (Dreher vs Ahmari in essence).
As for moderate Republicans, such as they are, their discourse around fiscal concerns and limited government concerns have reliably waxed and waned in perfect ironclad tandem with Republican control of government to such a degree that I think the kindest thing I can do is pretend you didn’t even assert it.Report
My hunch is that there are far fewer Benedictine and integralist socons than there are libertarians. They’ve attracted notice because frustrated people are interesting.Report
I wouldn’t take the opposite side of that bet. I don’t like losing money. It’s just like with social justice folks. Frustrated noisy people are interesting.Report
So a defense budget topping $700 Billion a year is limited government? Laws PREVENTING private companies from making decision about health requirements for their workforce is limited government? Tax cuts that only accrue to a small percentage of the economy but saddle the rest with growing dependencies on government assistance is limited government? DOMA was limited government? Really?Report
“The choice was between X and Y.”
“Well, the choice should have been between Y and Z and Z was the right answer.”
“But the choice was between X and Y.”
“Well, the choice should have been between Y and Z and Z was the right answer.”
iterateReport
Hang on a second. Most of this is boilerplate talking points, but are you really complaining about dependency on government assistance?Report
You consider defense spending “dependency on government assistance?” Yeah I’d go for that.
But no, I was pointing out the LOG in the eye of the “limited government” political Party – who are happy to crow about that alleged commitment while all the while expanding the way government intrudes into daily life and private decisions and the alleged drain on the economy to feed the economic greed of a small segment of our population. Which, lets be frank – is in no way limited.Report
https://unherd.com/2021/11/the-lefts-covid-failure/?
Seems appropriate for this thread.Report
Meanwhile, in actual Europe, vacicnation rates seem to have an effect on the amount of people dead, no matter the economic views of anti-vaxxers.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE4a3LkXEAUctep?format=jpg&name=largeReport
I am sure that Australia putting people in camps, or Austria locking away any people concerned with bodily autonomy is the height of civil liberties, and will do wonders for civic trust, social cohesion, and minority rights. Not to mention economic justice.
But, yes, 325 deaths per million is… catastrophic.Report
“But, yes, 325 deaths per million is… catastrophic.”
I mean yes, it is. If they are mostly unneeded deaths because of a populace’s selfish preferences.
You don’t have the civil liberty to spread the plague, period. That’s been pretty consistent since time immemorial.Report
The plague, sure.Report
Yes, put the unclean away in camps.
That will stop the deaths.Report
This sentence is a blatant lie.
There is no statistical difference in rates of transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated _who have Covid_. (Note by ‘have Covid’ we mean ‘are symptomatic enough that they realize they have Covid’.) Being vaccinated doesn’t reduce your spread _if you still catch Covid_ via breakthrough infection.
There is, rather obviously, a large difference in the ‘rate of transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated’ when considered across the population as a whole, as the unvaccinated are, of course, much much much more likely to have Covid! And thus much more likely to transmit it!
And thus using the claim ‘no difference in rates of transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated’ in a sentence talking about ‘the quarantining of healthy individuals’, when of course that entire statistic is about _infected _ people is, flatly a lie. It’s not even lying with statistics, it’s applying a statistic that is about one thing and using it to talk about literally the opposite group.Report
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltextReport
…uh huh?
You do understand that that statement applies to _people who are infected_. It’s a true statement, as I pointed out, but it applies to a specific group, people with infections.
That statement is basically ‘People who are in plane crashes are much more likely to die than people in car crashes’, a statement that is technically true (Almost all plane crashes have 100% fatalities), but is deliberately ignoring the odds of _getting in_ said crashes.
And if the unherd article stopped there, it would be just be lying with statistics, but it takes the study and applies it to ‘healthy’ people, which makes it an outright lie. No. Those studies are about known-infected people, not healthy people.
To figure out what percentage of ‘healthy’ unvaccinated people vs ‘healthy’ vaccinated people are spreading covid, you have to figure out what percentage of them are not actually healthy. (Duh. Actual uninfected people do not spread covid, but the entire premise is that covid takes a while to know you are not infected.)
And almost all infected people are unvaccinated. The vast, vast majority, it’s over 95% last I checked.
And thus almost all people spreading covid (Aka, infected people) are unvaccinated.
Ergo, the quarantining of ‘healthy’ people is something it is entirely rational to do to the unvaccinated and not the vaccinated, because the unvaccinated are much much more likely to have covid.
Of course, known infected people of any vaccination status should also be quarantined.Report
I can’t read through, much less jump in on 157 comments. What I’ll say is this: I’m not as old as some people here, but I am middle aged, and I’ve been in music scenes and other creative scenes for about 2/3rds of my life, and sometimes they shade over into political activist scenes. And, well, powertrippers are a thing.
I’ve seen the type again and again- they want to stir the pot against somebody- in fact, they seemingly have to stir the pot. And it can suck to be the one vilified, especially if it’s extremely tenuous. And they seemingly have to do that too- find someone to exclude, or villify, or make fun of. I get why most people respond by keeping their heads down.
So, when people say “I bet the people who complain about ‘wokism’ are just old white men who can’t run around using racial slurs anymore!” well, maybe… But, again, powertrippers are a thing, and if you’ve had to deal with them, some of them really do suck.
Are there more on the left than on the right? I think a more important question is What is at stake here if this powertripper wins? Is it some band gets kicked off a bill (which has happened to me)? Or is it a bunch of people go to jail or have their votes invalidated? Maybe pick your battles.Report
I made a friend at a BDSM event once because the topic of a certain “power tripper” came up. My soon-to-be friend asked tentatively what I thought of said power tripper. I said, “Oh God I can’t stand her.”
My new friend was like, “Oh good. You’re not one of hers.”
Anyway yeah, it’s a thing.Report
Definitely. I’ve only been to a few BSDM events, although I’ve had friends who were involved in that community, but I feel like that’s the worst environment to have a power tripper, ironically enough.Report
Ya don’t want a pyro in the fire department or a glutton in the kitchen so it makes enormous intuitive sense to me that you wouldn’t want a power tripper in a BDSM scene.Report
It reminds me of how the clergy attracts people of goodwill and intent, but the insular nature and structure of power and trust becomes tempting for people who exploit it for malicious ends.
Almost any sort of behavior can be handwaved away with “well, that just how people in our world behave” with the implication that dissent equals disloyalty.Report
This point has probably already been made in the 183 comments on the thread, but in my anecdotal sample, the charges of Leftward Authoritarianism feel like they are mostly coming from ‘mainstream’ conservatives that are desperate to not look at their own side. They need a boogeyman on the Left because they aren’t ready to admit that they are at a crossroads of a) Join the march towards fascism or b) Abandon ship. I have Republican family members that answer every horrible thing done by their side of the aisle with whataboutism about the Left while never actually denying the charges leveled at Republicans. Quillette is a good example of monetizing this impulse. They routinely provide fodder about why the SJ Left is the real threat.Report
Context is certainly important. No matter how insane and dumb planet woke is it has yet to attempt, however ineptly, to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.Report
Agreed. As I always reply to those family members, what is so scary about the Authoritarian Right is how organized and coordinated they are.Report
They’ve had 40 years to organize and sort. They have stayed on mission and on message the whole time. It’s morbidly impressive.Report
Well, to be fair, they already had the playbook:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511857/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KVV6LVLJXDY1&keywords=how+fascism+works&qid=1638541620&sprefix=how+fasc%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-1Report
Sadly so it appears.Report