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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks fun! I may check it out, especially since it's on Steam. Stadia - yech!
I haven't been playing anything new and actually haven't been playing much this summer so far. My go-to games are world of tanks, Civ 6, and Hearts-of-Iron 4.
But I did recently start a new Cyberpunk 2077 playthrough, this time with a female character. I'm going slow though, as I'm hoping for some DLC to drop soon. But it's interesting to see all the little details I missed/forgot about in the first playthrough. The game still looks great and plays well even on my underpowered laptop.
PS: Which one of the three Orcs Must Die iterations would you recommend? The latest version?
Excellent post. I haven't read the Williamson piece, but I agree with your arguments about the importance of actions beyond voting.
The only thing I would add is to mention the hypocrisy of many of these political efforts - for example, proponents of HR1 claim it will bring more democracy and representativeness, yet there are several provisions in the bill designed to harm third parties as if they aren't already weak enough. Increasing political participation while decreasing political choice in a country with a large and diverse population isn't helpful, particularly as the two major parties sort and serve increasingly narrow interests.
Yeah, portal is great, it's been a while since I've played it.
Currently, I've started on XCOM2, which has been on my wish-list for years, but a game I never did pick up. Steam had a sale this week (might still be on) with the game and all DLC and expansions for $20.
I'm not presupposing that at all. Since I don't see much rational or objective justification for people with authority and power to step in, I'm actually skeptical about their motivations for doing so.
Yes, I'm the furthest thing from any kind of financial expert. I did some "play trading" about a decade ago for fun, so know the basics, but even at my level of ignorance, it is quite obvious that a lot of the reporting is just bad.
I don't agree with AOC on much when it comes to policy, and I don't like the way she frames disagreement as a moral failing, but she does at least have a set of principles that guide her views, unlike most establishment politicians.
This has been a pretty interesting discussion. A few thoughts:
- Even I am surprised at how many people are trying to cram this square situation into the round hole of the current culture war. Too many people seem to be mostly interested in which side best supports their priors and viewing the situation through a binary lens a good and bad side. I'm seeing very few arguments based on first principles or objective criteria. Except, ironically, AOC and a few others. Instead, it's quickly becoming a lot of self-righteous hand-waving about bad people and bad organizations and supporting pretty much anything that hurts the bad people or bad organizations.
Personally, I think everyone should stay out of it and let this play out. If speculators want to play chicken (and these are speculators, not investors), why should anyone stop them. The hedge funds and Redditors are all adults who have agency and ought to understand the game they are playing. Big daddy paternalistic government, regulators, blue-check elites, tech companies, etc. should not step in and save any of them from their own mistakes, either with bailouts or preventing them from trading or de-platforming.
The only justified reason for regulators to step in and stop this is if there is a systemic market risk, which there isn't.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the idea of Reddit trolls bankrupting a hedge fund is apropos for the times we live in and it also hits the nostalgia button a bit by reminding me of Trading Places. So I hope they do it.
I was (and remain) an FTL fan, so I will definitely get this even though it's on the turd that is the Epic games store.
Since I beat Cyberpunk I haven't been gaming too much. I've played some Darkest Dungeon (thanks there as well for the recommendation and pointing out the Steam sale), as well as two stand-bys I play frequently - Hearts of Iron 4 and Civilization 6.
There was a Reddit thread over the weekend, since deleted, purporting to be from a frustrated developer with "inside" information on the future of the game. CDPR is supposedly planning to save the game by following the "No Man's Sky" model with the first major changes coming in June.
It also had a discussion of the huge amount of content that was cut from the final game.
I think this person is credible because the cut content makes sense based on the current state of the game and some weird things missing from the game and some of the quests.
I also read a history of the game's development and didn't realize just how many Witcher developers left the company during Cyberpunk's development and how disconnected the Execs and development team became. Explains a lot.
Anyway, they are still saying the first DLC will be in the first half of this year - I'm skeptical.
From previous comments, it sounds like you did the Panam ending? That's what I ended up doing, though I tried out a couple of other options as well after I completed that one.
I agree with you to an extent about a return to the beginning. As a nomad male character, the Panam ending was by far the best in terms of a total character arc as well as ultimate resolution compared to all the other alternatives. The "corpo" and "street kid" alternative beginnings and endings plus picking something besides a male hetero character result in endings that are not nearly as good IMO, and require more sacrifices and tradeoffs. I think that's a pretty major missed opportunity and/or oversight. I wouldn't be surprised to see some political criticism of this as more people play and finish the game.
It is appropriate, in keeping with the dark tone of the game, there's the very, very dark ending... I can see why there are zero incentives from the story to take that ending - I guess promoting that resolution was probably a bridge too far, even considering the sinnerman quest.
I put about 110 hours into the game which includes doing all the side-content as well as a lot of exploring. I actually did the boxing quests this weekend, but cheesed them with an exploit that lets you use a melee weapon. Even after doing all that content plus a lot of the procedural content (police missions/assaults that pop up), I started at the point-of-no-return at level 48 and hit 49 before the epilogue. And I was so powerful at that point that the end missions weren't a challenge. Again, another balance issue. Another problem is that it's very easy to not complete the Eurodyne questline before the point of no return. I ended up skipping time for several days until I was sure I had completed everything. From a story perspective, it makes sense to have his questline late in the game, but it's still a problem in terms of pacing.
Anyway, overall I really enjoyed the game. I look forward to the fixes and DLC, but I'm shelving it for now. The story, characters and environment are definitely the highlights for me. I think once they fix the technical issues and some of the glaring gameplay problems that this could be one of the best RPG's ever made. Considering the variety of endings, it will be interesting to see what the DLC will cover.
On “Is Leftist Authoritarianism A Thing Or Not?”
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.
"
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.
"
Yes, it would have been less authoritarian. That would not have made it any more moral or right or correct, however.
"
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.
"
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.
"
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.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Orcs Must Die!”
Cool, thanks!
"
Looks fun! I may check it out, especially since it's on Steam. Stadia - yech!
I haven't been playing anything new and actually haven't been playing much this summer so far. My go-to games are world of tanks, Civ 6, and Hearts-of-Iron 4.
But I did recently start a new Cyberpunk 2077 playthrough, this time with a female character. I'm going slow though, as I'm hoping for some DLC to drop soon. But it's interesting to see all the little details I missed/forgot about in the first playthrough. The game still looks great and plays well even on my underpowered laptop.
PS: Which one of the three Orcs Must Die iterations would you recommend? The latest version?
On ““Better Voters” Is Not Just About Voting”
Excellent post. I haven't read the Williamson piece, but I agree with your arguments about the importance of actions beyond voting.
The only thing I would add is to mention the hypocrisy of many of these political efforts - for example, proponents of HR1 claim it will bring more democracy and representativeness, yet there are several provisions in the bill designed to harm third parties as if they aren't already weak enough. Increasing political participation while decreasing political choice in a country with a large and diverse population isn't helpful, particularly as the two major parties sort and serve increasingly narrow interests.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Replaying the Portals”
Yeah, portal is great, it's been a while since I've played it.
Currently, I've started on XCOM2, which has been on my wish-list for years, but a game I never did pick up. Steam had a sale this week (might still be on) with the game and all DLC and expansions for $20.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
The CEO of webull, another trading app, says the clearing firm forced them to stop people from taking new positions in those stocks.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restricting-users-173049721.html
I don't know enough to evaluate what he's saying.
"
Yeah, I agree. The double-standard is the obvious problem.
This is a pretty good article from a former trader-turned-socialist (possible paywall):
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/robinhood-ban-gamestop-share-price-explained.html
"
I'm not presupposing that at all. Since I don't see much rational or objective justification for people with authority and power to step in, I'm actually skeptical about their motivations for doing so.
"
Yes, I'm the furthest thing from any kind of financial expert. I did some "play trading" about a decade ago for fun, so know the basics, but even at my level of ignorance, it is quite obvious that a lot of the reporting is just bad.
"
I don't agree with AOC on much when it comes to policy, and I don't like the way she frames disagreement as a moral failing, but she does at least have a set of principles that guide her views, unlike most establishment politicians.
"
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Everyone knows shorting is risky - many are learning that the hard way.
"
This has been a pretty interesting discussion. A few thoughts:
- Even I am surprised at how many people are trying to cram this square situation into the round hole of the current culture war. Too many people seem to be mostly interested in which side best supports their priors and viewing the situation through a binary lens a good and bad side. I'm seeing very few arguments based on first principles or objective criteria. Except, ironically, AOC and a few others. Instead, it's quickly becoming a lot of self-righteous hand-waving about bad people and bad organizations and supporting pretty much anything that hurts the bad people or bad organizations.
Personally, I think everyone should stay out of it and let this play out. If speculators want to play chicken (and these are speculators, not investors), why should anyone stop them. The hedge funds and Redditors are all adults who have agency and ought to understand the game they are playing. Big daddy paternalistic government, regulators, blue-check elites, tech companies, etc. should not step in and save any of them from their own mistakes, either with bailouts or preventing them from trading or de-platforming.
The only justified reason for regulators to step in and stop this is if there is a systemic market risk, which there isn't.
"
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the idea of Reddit trolls bankrupting a hedge fund is apropos for the times we live in and it also hits the nostalgia button a bit by reminding me of Trading Places. So I hope they do it.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Crying Suns”
You and me both!
"
I was never interested in that game and EA - yech. Got it for the kids on Xbox when it came out, but they stopped playing it after a couple of months.
You may have heard the next Star Wars game is going to be developed by Ubisoft and not EA. Progress!
"
Just a FYI, Bomber Crew is now free on Humble Bumble for the next couple of days. It's a fun little game.
"
Thanks for this post.
I was (and remain) an FTL fan, so I will definitely get this even though it's on the turd that is the Epic games store.
Since I beat Cyberpunk I haven't been gaming too much. I've played some Darkest Dungeon (thanks there as well for the recommendation and pointing out the Steam sale), as well as two stand-bys I play frequently - Hearts of Iron 4 and Civilization 6.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Cyberpunk 2077’s Full Review”
There was a Reddit thread over the weekend, since deleted, purporting to be from a frustrated developer with "inside" information on the future of the game. CDPR is supposedly planning to save the game by following the "No Man's Sky" model with the first major changes coming in June.
It also had a discussion of the huge amount of content that was cut from the final game.
I think this person is credible because the cut content makes sense based on the current state of the game and some weird things missing from the game and some of the quests.
I also read a history of the game's development and didn't realize just how many Witcher developers left the company during Cyberpunk's development and how disconnected the Execs and development team became. Explains a lot.
Anyway, they are still saying the first DLC will be in the first half of this year - I'm skeptical.
"
From previous comments, it sounds like you did the Panam ending? That's what I ended up doing, though I tried out a couple of other options as well after I completed that one.
I agree with you to an extent about a return to the beginning. As a nomad male character, the Panam ending was by far the best in terms of a total character arc as well as ultimate resolution compared to all the other alternatives. The "corpo" and "street kid" alternative beginnings and endings plus picking something besides a male hetero character result in endings that are not nearly as good IMO, and require more sacrifices and tradeoffs. I think that's a pretty major missed opportunity and/or oversight. I wouldn't be surprised to see some political criticism of this as more people play and finish the game.
It is appropriate, in keeping with the dark tone of the game, there's the very, very dark ending... I can see why there are zero incentives from the story to take that ending - I guess promoting that resolution was probably a bridge too far, even considering the sinnerman quest.
I put about 110 hours into the game which includes doing all the side-content as well as a lot of exploring. I actually did the boxing quests this weekend, but cheesed them with an exploit that lets you use a melee weapon. Even after doing all that content plus a lot of the procedural content (police missions/assaults that pop up), I started at the point-of-no-return at level 48 and hit 49 before the epilogue. And I was so powerful at that point that the end missions weren't a challenge. Again, another balance issue. Another problem is that it's very easy to not complete the Eurodyne questline before the point of no return. I ended up skipping time for several days until I was sure I had completed everything. From a story perspective, it makes sense to have his questline late in the game, but it's still a problem in terms of pacing.
Anyway, overall I really enjoyed the game. I look forward to the fixes and DLC, but I'm shelving it for now. The story, characters and environment are definitely the highlights for me. I think once they fix the technical issues and some of the glaring gameplay problems that this could be one of the best RPG's ever made. Considering the variety of endings, it will be interesting to see what the DLC will cover.
"
Did you find the boxing quests as annoying as I did? I haven't done any of them actually - that's one area that's not power creeped.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.