Greed is Good (Fodder for a broad discussion of economics :))

[Pointedstick]

Okay, Wikipedia says that political scientist Juan Linz's definition of "authoritarianism" is the controlling one:

1. Limited, not responsible, political pluralism (i.e. restrictions on political organization and participation)
2. A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency
3. Neither "intensive nor extensive political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public (such as repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of anti-regime activity)
4. "Formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague

Based on these conditions, our current government already easily matches #2 and #4. Both Democrats and Republicans like various forms of #1 (limitations on campaign spending from Democrats and impediments to voting from Republicans). I don't see any candidates advocating or practicing #3.

I can only conclude that this term is all but meaningless in the context of our political system, and is nothing more than a simple insult used against conservatives by sanctimonious liberals.

[WiseOne]

Agreed, if the article was talking about authoritarianism in a political context.  The bit about the well-behaved children is confusing though.  I thought maybe they were talking about it in social terms.

In either case, I agree it's simply a slightly more creative way to write yet another smear article.  Which is not useful.  We are still back to the question of exactly what it is about Trump (that is unique to him) that we need to be wary of.

[jafs]

My dictionary gives the following definition of authoritarian:

Relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.
Of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

The questions about children were whether it's more important for one's child to be:

Respectful or independent
Obedient or self-reliant
Well-behaved or considerate
Well-mannered or curious

The first set of answers were what corresponded with "authoritarianism", and also with Trump supporters.

If we had children, I'd answer all questions with the second choice, and would feel like a very successful parent if I were able to raise an independent, self-reliant, considerate and curious child.

Most libertarians/anarchists would answer that way as well, I would expect, given my conversations with them over the years - how would you answer them?

[Pointedstick]

I reject the dichotomies presented, which implicitly endorses the idea that respectfulness and independent thought are mutually exclusive. I generally try to raise my children to tend toward the second responses, but with a good helping of the first ones. I see no reason why an independent child can't be respectful, why a curious child can't also have good manners, etc.

Given the correlation between relative degree of conservativeness (?) and authoritarianism, I would expect that an authoritarian bent is a good predictor of Republican party affiliation.

This sort of gets to what I meant when I said:

I can only conclude that this term is all but meaningless in the context of our political system, and is nothing more than a simple insult used against conservatives by sanctimonious liberals.

[MediumTex]

I'm okay with the idea that "authoritarian" is now a word with no real meaning.

I will just add it to the pile of such words like "literally", "incredible", and "shocked."

Proper usage in a sentence might be: "It was an incredible speech.  I mean, everyone literally loved every word.  Sure he came across as a little authoritarian, but I don't think anyone was shocked by that."

[Benko]

My dictionary gives the following definition of authoritarian:

Relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.
Of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

The questions about children were whether it's more important for one's child to be:

Respectful or independent
Obedient or self-reliant
Well-behaved or considerate
Well-mannered or curious

The first set of answers were what corresponded with "authoritarianism", and also with Trump supporters.

If we had children, I'd answer all questions with the second choice, and would feel like a very successful parent if I were able to raise an independent, self-reliant, considerate and curious child.

Most libertarians/anarchists would answer that way as well, I would expect, given my conversations with them over the years - how would you answer them?

Jaf,

I have a strong anti-authority bias in my personal life and would answer the 2nd choice to all of your questions.  However given the SOP i.e. standard operating procedures of the left:

Romney didn't pay his taxes
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said.
Defining anything other than leftist beliefs as evil, bigoted, etc.
The standard tactics of the press e.g. editing quotes (see CNN), etc.

I want not Stalin, but a shrewd* person capable of being an SOB when necessary.  Yes, Trump is unfortunately an SOB when it is not necessary, but given the choices, he will have to do. 

*trump is more shrewd that anyone else in the race e.g. giving out free tickets to the movie about Bengazi, when his opponents leaked his cell phone number, anyone who called it got a recording about his political beliefs, etc.

[Pointedstick]

Jaf,

I have a strong anti-authority bias in my personal life and would answer the 2nd choice to all of your questions.  However given the SOP i.e. standard operating procedures of the left:

Romney didn't pay his taxes
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said.
Defining anything other than leftist beliefs as evil, bigoted, etc.
The standard tactics of the press e.g. editing quotes (see CNN), etc.

I want not Stalin, but a shrewd* person capable of being an SOB when necessary.  Yes, Trump is unfortunately an SOB when it is not necessary, but given the choices, he will have to do. 

*trump is more shrewd that anyone else in the race e.g. giving out free tickets to the movie about Bengazi, when his opponents leaked his cell phone number, anyone who called it got a recording about his political beliefs, etc.

In other words, even if you're someone who prefers to be left alone and be free from authority and power over you, sometimes it may seem desirable to allow someone with authority and power who you kind of sort of like to protect you from people with authority and power who you do NOT like at all and believe to be actively harmful to you.

[jafs]

The interesting thing to me is that the mindset described as authoritarian was a better predictor than many other more normal things that we usually look at.

Well, to be fair, what he found was that support for Trump correlated to answers to 4 questions:

These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious.

What wasn't clear to me from the article was whether or not the answers to these 4 questions correlated to support for Trump vs. random Democrat, or Trump vs. other republican candidates.  Also (and I meant to say this above), I would expect that the answers to these 4 questions correlates with a Clinton vs. Cruz comparison too.

Yes, and it is those questions that are used to determine authoritarian tendencies, according to the article.

Benko's post is a perfect example of what I find so distasteful about modern politics.  It's set up as if the important thing is to defeat your enemies, and defines those as people who hold different political beliefs.  What ever happened to the idea that a government is supposed to do just that, govern?  And that people who believe differently don't have to be "enemies"?

[MediumTex]

The interesting thing to me is that the mindset described as authoritarian was a better predictor than many other more normal things that we usually look at.

Well, to be fair, what he found was that support for Trump correlated to answers to 4 questions:

These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious.

What wasn't clear to me from the article was whether or not the answers to these 4 questions correlated to support for Trump vs. random Democrat, or Trump vs. other republican candidates.  Also (and I meant to say this above), I would expect that the answers to these 4 questions correlates with a Clinton vs. Cruz comparison too.

Yes, and it is those questions that are used to determine authoritarian tendencies, according to the article.

Benko's post is a perfect example of what I find so distasteful about modern politics.  It's set up as if the important thing is to defeat your enemies, and defines those as people who hold different political beliefs.  What ever happened to the idea that a government is supposed to do just that, govern?  And that people who believe differently don't have to be "enemies"?

I just got from his post that it's important not to be defeated by your enemies.

Reagan "defeated" many of his Democratic opponents by marginalizing them.  He simply kept them on the sidelines when the important plays were taking place.

[jafs]

Same problem.

Why is it necessary to define people who believe differently as "enemies"?

And, if that's the mindset and the important thing is to fight against them, as we've seen with the recent R Congress and the president, that doesn't leave much room for actual governing, which traditionally has included working together with people who disagree and a variety of compromises.

[Pointedstick]

Politics is the clash of opposed interests in a state of scarcity using power to determine the winner. There is no such thing as politics without enemies. "Governing" entails enacting policies that benefit some, and hurt others. The ones who are hurt become the enemies of those who govern. It's as simple as that.

[MediumTex]

Same problem.

Why is it necessary to define people who believe differently as "enemies"?

I think that's how they define themselves.  I just define them as a bunch of narcissistic ego-fueled WWE-style political hacks.

And, if that's the mindset and the important thing is to fight against them, as we've seen with the recent R Congress and the president, that doesn't leave much room for actual governing, which traditionally has included working together with people who disagree and a variety of compromises.

You're right, it doesn't.  It's actually a recipe for the government to not be able to do much of anything...which is probably not a bad thing.

I sort of like it when the people are in a grouchy distrustful mood toward the government.  It makes it harder for the government to do too much damage.

[jafs]

Politics is the clash of opposed interests in a state of scarcity using power to determine the winner. There is no such thing as politics without enemies. "Governing" entails enacting policies that benefit some, and hurt others. The ones who are hurt become the enemies of those who govern. It's as simple as that.

Well, I don't agree with that at all.

First, we're blessed with a lot of abundance in this country, compared with many other countries.
Then, although some policies benefit some groups more than others, it doesn't mean that they have to "hurt" anybody.  And, it also doesn't mean that those who don't benefit as much have to become enemies of the others.

This goes back to our discussion of taxes, I think.  If you perceive any taxation as harming you, then you'll probably feel "hurt" by it, and angry at those who are taxing you.  Since I don't perceive it that way, I don't feel that way, especially if the tax revenue goes towards things I support.

I've had more thoughts about that discussion - if you view a government, especially a city government as a service business, then you're choosing which service business to patronize and picking the one that best meets your needs.  It's not all that different than picking a cable company or health club, both of whom offer packages that you may not want in their entirety.  And neither of which would let you use their services without paying for them.

[MediumTex]

Politics is the clash of opposed interests in a state of scarcity using power to determine the winner. There is no such thing as politics without enemies. "Governing" entails enacting policies that benefit some, and hurt others. The ones who are hurt become the enemies of those who govern. It's as simple as that.

Well, I don't agree with that at all.

First, we're blessed with a lot of abundance in this country, compared with many other countries.
Then, although some policies benefit some groups more than others, it doesn't mean that they have to "hurt" anybody.  And, it also doesn't mean that those who don't benefit as much have to become enemies of the others.

This goes back to our discussion of taxes, I think.  If you perceive any taxation as harming you, then you'll probably feel "hurt" by it, and angry at those who are taxing you.  Since I don't perceive it that way, I don't feel that way, especially if the tax revenue goes towards things I support.

I've had more thoughts about that discussion - if you view a government, especially a city government as a service business, then you're choosing which service business to patronize and picking the one that best meets your needs.  It's not all that different than picking a cable company or health club, both of whom offer packages that you may not want in their entirety.

The only way to avoid us/them tribalism in politics is when one side has completely overwhelming power over the other, or the beliefs of both sides are more or less the same.

In a lot of political settings, one of the two factors above can make for a pretty calm environment.

I think that when you look at a lot of the below-the-waterline activities that Congress has been engaged in over the last seven years regarding ongoing governmental operations, you would find that they worked fine with the Obama administration, simply because they all more or less agreed on what they were doing.

Another dirty secret that the Republicans don't want you to know is that they are mostly socialists themselves, except they tilt their socialism more toward support for the rich.  There are very few true small government Republicans anymore.  Before Obama, the two biggest deficit spending Presidents in our hisotry were Reagan and George W. Bush.

[jafs]

Why?

If I define myself as a human being, just like the other human beings on the planet, then there is no "them", there's just "us".

I agree about the deficit spending issue.

[MediumTex]

Why?

If I define myself as a human being, just like the other human beings on the planet, then there is no "them", there's just "us".

10,000 years of tribalism suggests otherwise.

Human beings delight in subjugating their environment, but they get absolutely giddy when they can subjugate someone with whom they disagree.

Why are people that way?  I don't know.  I guess it's just how we have evolved culturally.  It's not so different with other animals, except other animals don't kill nearly as many of their own kind as we do.  Viewed from that perspective, it sort of makes us seem a lot less civilized than the rest of the animal world, doesn't it?

Here is what the whales have to say on the topic:

W1: I heard the thumbbots killed another 10,000 of each other somewhere in the Middle East.

W2: Really?  Just 10,000?  I'll bet their military leaders were disappointed.

W1: Yeah.  But I like to think that if they are killing each other they will have less interest in killing us or turning us into sideshow entertainers.

W2: Let's hope so.

[Pointedstick]

Why?

If I define myself as a human being, just like the other human beings on the planet, then there is no "them", there's just "us".

Are you just like me?

[jafs]

Why?

If I define myself as a human being, just like the other human beings on the planet, then there is no "them", there's just "us".

Are you just like me?

Fundamentally, absolutely.  I am of the same species, with the same biology, and operate in much the same way, seeking to maximize pleasure/avoid pain, understand the world, live in some way that is meaningful/satisfying, etc.

If there is such a thing as "human nature", then by definition, that means that we share the same basic nature.

[Pointedstick]

Why?

If I define myself as a human being, just like the other human beings on the planet, then there is no "them", there's just "us".

Are you just like me?

Fundamentally, absolutely.  I am of the same species, with the same biology, and operate in much the same way, seeking to maximize pleasure/avoid pain, understand the world, live in some way that is meaningful/satisfying, etc.

If there is such a thing as "human nature", then by definition, that means that we share the same basic nature.

Does the fact that we are both made of the same basic stuff mean that our personal interests will never clash and our ideas about how things should be done will never differ?

[MediumTex]

Why?

If I define myself as a human being, just like the other human beings on the planet, then there is no "them", there's just "us".

Are you just like me?

Fundamentally, absolutely.  I am of the same species, with the same biology, and operate in much the same way, seeking to maximize pleasure/avoid pain, understand the world, live in some way that is meaningful/satisfying, etc.

If there is such a thing as "human nature", then by definition, that means that we share the same basic nature.

Part of the basic nature that we share is a desire to dominate our environment, and in a world of limited resources, this sets the stage for competition, which can sometimes lead to conflict (and even name calling).

It's the competition that makes people act so unpleasant toward one another.

I'm actually okay with the competition part of human nature.  It's the discovery of coercion as an alternative to competition that bothers me.

Imagine Stalin watching a sporting event between the Soviet Union and the United States:

Stalin Aide: "Comrade Stalin, our men are the finest athletes in the world.  I am sure they will win."

Stalin: "That's cool that we already know they are going to win."

Stalin Aide: "Well, it's not certain.  That's why they play."

Stalin: "Hmm.  Given the importance of this contest to the world image of the Soviet Union, wouldn't it have been better to have just killed the other team before the game started?"

Stalin Aide: "Dangit!  I didn't think of that.  I guess that's why you're the boss--you've always got the BEST ideas."

That's how coercion edges out competition.

[jafs]

Are you just like me?

Fundamentally, absolutely.  I am of the same species, with the same biology, and operate in much the same way, seeking to maximize pleasure/avoid pain, understand the world, live in some way that is meaningful/satisfying, etc.

If there is such a thing as "human nature", then by definition, that means that we share the same basic nature.

Does the fact that we are both made of the same basic stuff mean that our personal interests will never clash and our ideas about how things should be done will never differ?

No.

But it means that we share enough of the basic stuff that we can/should find ways of working things out without demonizing each other, and creating such a hostile environment that we see each other as enemies.

[MediumTex]

Fundamentally, absolutely.  I am of the same species, with the same biology, and operate in much the same way, seeking to maximize pleasure/avoid pain, understand the world, live in some way that is meaningful/satisfying, etc.

If there is such a thing as "human nature", then by definition, that means that we share the same basic nature.

Does the fact that we are both made of the same basic stuff mean that our personal interests will never clash and our ideas about how things should be done will never differ?

No.

But it means that we share enough of the basic stuff that we can/should find ways of working things out without demonizing each other, and creating such a hostile environment that we see each other as enemies.

Well, you're in the right place.

In my own experience, this forum is the friendliest place in the universe to discuss controversial topics.

So enjoy!

[jafs]

Thanks!

That's one of the things I've liked about the forum for a while, while lurking 

[Pointedstick]

But it means that we share enough of the basic stuff that we can/should find ways of working things out without demonizing each other, and creating such a hostile environment that we see each other as enemies.

Politically, if each of our desires results would result in harm to the other, wouldn't that naturally make us political enemies?

I'm not saying they do, of course. Just trying to explain how it might happen.

For example, imagine one person who earns $55k per year and believes that a 75% federal marginal tax rate on all income above $50k is fair if the money goes towards inner-city welfare, because that person lives near an especially violent inner city and feels bad for the people who live there and wants to help them, not to mention that person would like to see the crime rate fall so they don't feed frightened of violence.

Now imagine a person who makes 100k a year and lives in a nice house away from the crime-ridden inner city, therefore taking their property tax revenues and spending far away from the blighted community. This person's take-home income is reduced by up to $37,500 (depending on what the taxes were before). That might cause this person to be unable to afford their mortgage if they happened to have spent a lot of money on a nice house far away from that crime-ridden inner city.

Both of these people are fundamentally trying to solve the same problem in their lives: a crime-ridden inner city. One person's approach is to flee, taking the positive impact of their wealth with them and perhaps exposing a callous lack of caring for the people affected by this problem. Another person's approach is to advocate for raising taxes on the people who were wealthy enough to flee, in pursuit of using the new tax money to pay for programs that it is hoped will improve things.

Given the fundamentally divisive nature of these basic issues (responsibility towards others, keeping what you earn, being able to afford to leave a bad situation), can you understand how these two people might come into conflict and eventually view one another as political enemies?

[jafs]

But it means that we share enough of the basic stuff that we can/should find ways of working things out without demonizing each other, and creating such a hostile environment that we see each other as enemies.

Politically, if each of our desires results would result in harm to the other, wouldn't that naturally make us political enemies?

I'm not saying they do, of course. Just trying to explain how it might happen.

For example, imagine one person who earns $55k per year and believes that a 75% federal marginal tax rate on all income above $50k is fair if the money goes towards inner-city welfare, because that person lives near an especially violent inner city and feels bad for the people who live there and wants to help them, not to mention that person would like to see the crime rate fall so they don't feed frightened of violence.

Now imagine a person who makes 100k a year and lives in a nice house away from the crime-ridden inner city, therefore taking their property tax revenues and spending far away from the blighted community. This person's take-home income is reduced by up to $37,500 (depending on what the taxes were before). That might cause this person to be unable to afford their mortgage if they happened to have spent a lot of money on a nice house far away from that crime-ridden inner city.

Both of these people are fundamentally trying to solve the same problem in their lives: a crime-ridden inner city. One person's approach is to flee, taking the positive impact of their wealth with them and perhaps exposing a callous lack of caring for the people affected by this problem. Another person's approach is to advocate for raising taxes on the people who were wealthy enough to flee, in pursuit of using the new tax money to pay for programs that it is hoped will improve things.

Given the fundamentally divisive nature of these basic issues (responsibility towards others, keeping what you earn, being able to afford to leave a bad situation), can you understand how these two people might come into conflict and eventually view one another as political enemies?

I love your examples/analogies - they're very clear and to the point.

And, you are shining a light on a difficult problem, without question.

In some sense, there is a decision to be made about our governmental policies, whether they simply cater to people's individual needs/desires (or at least the subset of those that are voting) or try to look at the bigger picture.  I don't like how much politicians (of all kinds) seem to focus on the first rather than the second.

In your example, the best outcome I can imagine would be for the two different people/ideas to sit down together and try to figure out a way to help the situation without hurting anybody.  That's not possible if they see each other as enemies, unfortunately.  Also, generally speaking, we could try to focus on some of the underlying causes of the issue, including how wealth/income are distributed in the first place, disparities in education and opportunities for inner city minorities, how those groups tend to wind up being prosecuted for minor crimes more than other groups, and how that gets them into the criminal justice system and makes it harder for them to get out, etc.

But we have to start, I think, from the premise that we're all looking for very similar things, but just in different ways.  We all want to be safe, happy, financially comfortable, etc.