Why do people in America support authoritarians in 2022?
It is a given that politicians like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis of Florida are authoritarians. In fact, they are wannabe dictators. Many millions of Americans have bought into their unAmerican, anti-democratic message and give full-throated support for their take-over of government institutions. For a freedom loving country, that is simply irrational.
These type of people are common throughout the world today and throughout history. Not to go back too far, you have the Germans who, even knowing how bad Hitler was, helped him to power and eventually WW II. The same is true of those who allowed Stalin to rise to power and keep him there as he murdered so many millions of their fellow citizens. Even today, there are millions of Russians who willingly keep Putin in power even though they know he is destroying their country. The same is true of Maduro in Venezuela.
Much study has been done trying to figure out what human characteristics are needed for so many otherwise intelligent Germans would continue to irrationally follow Hitler, even after it was known he was a monster. I would argue the same findings apply to those who irrationally follow Trump (some of whom, as why have seen, are willing to kill for him)
Social scientists like Stanley Milgram and Robert Altemeyer have done extensive study of the traits of individuals who blindly follow dictators. Their finding are eye-opening, yet unsurprising.
Beyond that, I leave this open to discussion.An interesting question; I wait with interest to see what other Americans say on the topic.
Why do people have Faith in centroism of the Government Gods and Banksters? Their will be no aswers for this as long as there is totalterrimism compliancy to the programed system. They create the monster, poor people pay these powers to be a third or half their money. In order to kill these Monsters and they keep coming back stronger then ever.
Give me anarchist as it has been a peaceful, loving and natural lifestyle. Or suffer the not ever ending owners. I know I can't be owned or enslaved.I am sorry, but when has anarchism ever been peaceful, loving, and natural? Seems to me that Marxism is the closest thing to anarchism and look how that turned out.
Also, humanity had a chance to be an anarchist society before it became agrarian. It didn't happen then, which says it is not the "natural" way of living.
I think that Conservatives have it right when they propose that humanity is programmed to live in a hierarchical society.
Where they have it wrong is people also need to strive to make that reality as egalitarian as possible and still have a functioning, livable society. That is what liberalism is all about.Thought I was a classic liberal as a hippy. The today liberal is more divided and dangerous, vote all parties, they are all the same.
Anarchist mean no one above me or below me.
Left-to-right is economic freedom, and top-to-bottom is personal freedom. The worse enemy is oneself, working on oneself is better than any religion or political wing or any Centroism of absolute corruption.
I'm not interested in any centroism or a chess game of hierarchy. More equal is in a game of tit for tat of individualism and cooperation.
I can be anything I want to be and have for 47 years by experience of knowing that is a fact and lifestyle. Super Power corrupts, and the best way to fix that is to abolish it or give the power to the people as We the People, not We the Government. The history of violence and suppression.
Marxism-Leninism, a variation proposed by Lenin, was very much authoritarian, and suggested that the Communist Party should seize control and march the world towards communism.
A lot of people don’t want to be marched, especially anarchist. If have to use labels, I'm a mini anarchist, everything in moderation.
Castlepaloma: FYI England and Normandy (part of France) suffered anarchy from 1138 to 1153 (15 years) when two cousins (grandchildren of William the Conquer) bitterly fought each other for the ‘Crown’ of England (civil war), which resulted in a widespread breakdown in law and order (anarchy) - Thus this period of English history is known as 'The Anarchy'
So don’t try to fool us that anarchy is peaceful, loving and natural; anarchy is quite the opposite, by its very nature anarchy is the breakdown in society, lawlessness and disorder.
The conflict between Matilda and Stephen (cousins) as they fight each other for the Crown of England during the Anarchy Years is summarised in this entertaining song: https://youtu.be/T68Bqw7of-kProjecting kingdoms and hierarchy to the history to anarchism is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.
Anarcho-pacifism rejects the principle of violence which is seen as a form of power and therefore as contradictory to key anarchist ideals such as the rejection of hierarchy and dominance. Many anarcho-pacifists are also Christian anarchists, who reject war and the use of violence.
Best example of anarchist action was in the Trucker convoy in Ottawa Canada, less than 2 hours, from Montreal, which has the largest gathering of anarchist in the world. Trudeau action was a great example and embarrassment for Canada of his Dictatorship. Who he most admire China country for and as he also puts down the farmers and trucker communities. Trudeau and most of his cabinets is under WEF Klause.
Truckers and farmers is our true democracy last stand.You're missing the point: Stephen and Matilda were not anarchists, they were fighting each other for the 'Crown' of England; and by doing so there was no governing body for those 15 years of conflict to keep 'law and order'; throwing England into a period of anarchy.
Anarchy by its very nature means lawlessness and disorder; and you can't tell me anarchists are not violent - It's not uncommon in protests for anarchists (waving thier black flags) to turn an otherwise peaceful protest into a violent one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolismThere is no point to the largest imperialism in human history, the British. Other than GREED always require slaves to operate. Most of black slaves were already there in the America's yet since the winners wrote the history of lies, it's what people are brainwashed to believe. It make little sense shipping blacks, when half of them died during the trips. The greatest Genocide in human history were the native American and they have very good reason to not ever trust the Government.
Wiki shows nothing of anarchist history of violence or claims of countries. They talk about an anarchist flag. Unlike the country flags waving their dangerous dicks around always claiming superior authority complex.
Anarchy is often contrasted with law, order, or security. But anarchist societies, by which I mean societies that lack a monopoly of coercive force, need not be lawless. They can develop sophisticated legal systems that regulate the behavior of their members and protect their rights.We have centuries of salvery from kings to Presidents today. Where Presidents can not be of a country , only of a corporation. Salvery is bigger today than any other time in human history.
What has American and British history with the slave trade to do with modern day governments – Nothing (slavery has been abolished).
Bedsides: If you had a society that “developed sophisticated legal systems that regulated the behaviour of their members and protected their rights” then you wouldn’t have an anarchist society – so your reasoning just doesn’t hold water.
"Projecting kingdoms and hierarchy to the history to anarchism is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet." - Why is that? Why haven't you shown us any examples of where anarchy actually worked without bloodshed and violence? Without that, your wishful thinking is just that, just an unattainable fantasy world.
Your truckers example is not an example of anarchy - just a large protest. Closer to anarchy is the gov't free zone set up in Portland. Look how that turned out - murder, rape, and other violence.
"Truckers and farmers is our true democracy last stand." - I thought you said you were for anarchy, not democracy (even the Greek kind)
The notorious New York mobster, Dutch Schultz, had a motto: "people are dumb.
We seem to revisit this time and time again. People embrace authoritarian and tyranny as the last safe haven for their fears of change and false promises that continued democracy will not address. In America, we know what that is, the sharing of political power in a multiracial, multi ethnic society. All one has to do is watch Tucker Carlson fan the fears of "displacement". The Rightwingers watch that drivel all of the time. Are we to believe that they are not influenced by it?
We have a Joseph McCarthy style in Donald Trump, attacking and making accusations without any evidence to support it.
I would not imagine 50 years ago, that our democratic process was ever in real danger as both sides of the isle told Nixon that he had to go.
People that submit to such personas are in my estimation, inherently weak and lacking in character.Since JF Kenedy, not into any of the characters of US Presidents, except maybe Jimmy Carter and the recent Mexican President.
Meet a few world leaders and don't feel better or worse a person. My Brother is a pastor, he hasn't been flying around the room to show me he is any more special a person. We all put our pants on all the same way. Although I'll take any good bits from anyone, when it makes good sense, especially love. Trump loving dogs speech, is not good enough. It's probably a con, from a megalomaniac who owns me $10,000.You can bring Trumps inherent dishonesty home to your own wallet, it speaks volumes.....
I had no idea who Trump was, until I built a sandcastle for his Trump world Casino. About 2% of clients are out to screw you. I fire 5% of my clients each year. Trump is fired for ever, shame on him, not me. I don't like greedy billionaires or Presidents.
John Dean wrote a book that got be very interested in what are the traits of the kind of people who unreasonably follow Trump. His book is titled Conservatives Without Conscience I didn't really understand the full meaning of that title until Trump came along and polluted the world with Trumpism.
Here are the 12 traits that identify a Trump follower (more generally, a right-wing authoritarian (RWA) follower of any political stripe).
1. FEAR: High scoring RWA's are fearful of many things, especially things their leader tells them to be afraid of, e.g. Mexicans or Muslims.
2. Excessively Self-Righteous: This generally goes hand-in-hand with fundamentalist or evangelical orientation.
3. Dogmatism: This trait is found in anybody who is extreme. Since there are more extreme Conservatives then extreme Liberals in America, this trait is more applicable to Trump supporters.
4. Authoritarian Submission: This is what Milgram's experiment revealed. Certain personality types are much more prone to take orders from an authority figure than others. Trump followers don't question anything Trump tells them (nor do Maduro followers on the other side of the political divide). People in the middle almost always question what they are told.
5. Hostility: This is not your run-of-the-mill hostility. Instead, it is the reaction one gets when you confront an acolyte with facts that are contrary to the fantasy world they have chosen to live in. This resulted in a famous picture I saw of a Rand Paul supporter standing on the head of a female protestor at a Paul rally.
6. "Biggest Problem" Syndrome: High-scoring RWAs tend to focus on the Big Problem of the day, be it drugs, the liberal take-over of America, the national debt, drugs, or other such crisis conjured up by their chosen leader.
7. Compartmentalized Thinking: This is a requirement for people who live in their leaders fantasy world and the real world at the same time. For most affairs of life, high-scoring RWAs act rationally. But when it comes to challenges to their leaders fantasy world, dynamite (or the truth) rarely pry them away from their false belief system.
8. Double Standards: Not sure why this is a unique trait since everybody has them. But, it was on the list.
9. Feeling Empowered Within Groups: The best example of this trait are those Trump Republicans who privately tell reporters off-the-record that Trump sucks, but sing his praises publically.
10. Highly Prejudiced: This was what Trump used to build his initial following and goes hand-in-hand with Fear.
11. Pronounced Ethnocentrism: The Them vs Us syndrom.
12. A Lack of Critical Thinking: This is critical to someone who chooses to follow an authoritarian leader
Tell me that doesn't describe about every person you know who blindly follow Trump as opposed to those who support Biden.Kathryn, it is Biden who is the tyrant. Trump in my estimation wasn't a tyrant. Because of Biden, the middle class is going to be taxed to death by his IRS enforcers through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Really? It should be called the Middle Class Wipe Out Act. Kathryn, this government is the MOST AUTHORITARIAN government ever. Trump was never tyrannical.
How did Trump hurt this country?
What did he do wrong?
Lets us ask Biden Supporters and Never-Trumpers, like Mitt and Liz!
What are some good examples of where his policies did not work?
We need answers from them, the media and the Soros-picked DA's"How did Trump hurt this country?" - [i]You got to be kidding me. Let's just pick on two. All but one of the medical experts around Trump reported that Trump's response to Covid led to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. Another is the current breakdown in American democracy Trump has (is) engineered.
Again, typical and non-responsive to the truth.
... what else do you have?
AND?
A N D ?"How did Trump hurt this country?
What did he do wrong?
Lets us ask Biden Supporters and Never-Trumpers, like Mitt and Liz!
What are some good examples of where his policies did not work?
We need answers from them, the media and the Soros-picked DA's" KLH
The response was:
"How did Trump hurt this country?" You got to be kidding me. Let's just pick two:"
1. "Trump's response to Covid led to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths."
2. " Trump engineered the current breakdown in American democracy."
good grief
what ever
oh brotherWasn't that enough for you? More than a million dead from Covid and most of that is on him?
How about four more:
- Stealing kids away from their parents as a policy decision.
- Making America look like fools?
- Bankrupting farmers with his failed and ill-conceived tariff policies
- Lying to the public almost every chance he got. What is it now, well over 10,000 verified lies?
I see you have bought into the right-wing lies then. There is no facts supporting your claim.
And that is a typical high-scoring RWA response.
Wow, that’s a great analysis Scott; and so accurate. I wonder if any of Trump supporters will counter with any cohesive counterarguments, or just stick with 'name calling'?
I wish it were my analysis, but it is not. It is the compilation of years of research by the two I mentioned and many others.
We saw the reaction - denialism, or more specifically, examples of 3, 4, 7, 8, and the big one, 12.
You can find more detail here - http://hub.me/aapSEThanks for the link; I found the statement about ‘empathy’ in the article so true to life.
I also did the test and scored minus 80 (-80).I am working on a book about what conservatism has done to America and that will be a major theme as to what sets liberals and conservatives apart - empathy. Liberals have it for all people while conservatives limit their empathy to their family and a few friends.
Here is a reminder, Eso, of the kind man the Rightwinger fawns over. It goes far beyond being conservative verses being liberal, it cuts to the chase regarding deficits in character that either side should find repugnant.
https://news.yahoo.com/guest-opinion-wa … 25873.html
We must have all gone mad to entertain someone who is not even smart enough to keep his inane ideas and comments to himself, introducing Donald J. Trump.I agree with you, Credence. My focus is what conservative ideology has done to hold back or reverse social progress. It won't deal with demagogues and crazy people for they have no ideology - just hate.
Thanks for sharing, your thoughts have given me new clarity on the differences. Yes, empathy seems to be a defining factor. The book you're working on sounds a great project.
Don't want any more Government empathy, it killing us greater than anything. Got no time for insane Government who have no clue what compassion is for all people. They rather label and conquer over people powers and wills, like suffering God's.
Only if you vote in an authoritarian government. Not all governments are the same.
The Government that are in power now have raped me and most others. There is possibilities that Governments can run the small stuff, just not our lives.
You may not like the current Canadian Government, if so then vote for the opposition in the next election. But Canada is not the world; every county has their own government, covering the full full political spectrum - some are authoritarian regimes like China, North Korea and Russia etc., that do supress personal freedoms; while others, such as across Europe, Britian, Australia, and the USA etc., are free democracies where we do have our freedom.
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore.
Out of all these, the distinct impression that these Trump supporters would support him regardless of what he does and say is appalling in itself.
Point me to your RWA exam, I want to see how I would rate.When I used Scott's link I scored 'minus 80' (-80); which isn't surprising considering I'm a socialist.
I'd be interested in what you score.Thanks, Arthur, I am going to try to take the exam today.
http://www.panojohnson.com/automatons/r … 20extreme.
Arthur, I took this exam as it automatically computed scores, the range was 20-180, with 20 being the least Rightwing authoritarian. I scored 31.
Based on the narrative in the link, that score seems very low, even for me.Thanks for the link. I scored 80, which seems to be average area. I got a good giggle reading the info too.
Sorry, 80% is very high and is rare. Only 4% score higher than 74%, On the other hand, 78% of respondents score below 25%.
Of those who identify as leaning Right, 9% score higher than 74%,
Then there is the whole other subject of those who high-scoring RWAs actually follow - the Social Dominators (e.g. Trump, Putin, Gingrich, Hitler, Un, and the like). They have their own separate set of characteristics. There is third group - double highs, those who score high is RWAs and as SDs.ha, ha That isn't what the article says. I'll use their info, sorry. Maybe I am a rascal. Their scale is 20 - 180. If one answers neutral on all the questions the score is 100. Go figure.
Edit: I took the one offered by Cred. A lot easier to use.
I got 35 out of 80 on the Empathy Quotient test, barely above autistic, lol. Yet I see myself as very empathetic.
On the test Cred posted. I scored 54 on the LWA.
Thanks for the link Credence, was doing the test in the HubPages article, so I've redone the test using your link and scored 24.
I am starting to think the algorithm Hubpages uses for the type of survey I put together has a flaw in it. I sent them a query. The way it works is each answer is given a weight, -5 to +5. The higher the number, the more "right-wing" that answer is. The results are totaled and then divided by 5 times the number of question there are to get the percentage.
Obviously, the can result in a negative percentage which Hubpages interprets as Zero. I think I knew that once, but have since forgotten. In any case, you end up with sort of a truncated score, where people with a negative total (like me) end up with 0%,
Because the same process is used in all cases, the results are still valid where if you have a positive percentage, your 'plus' scores exceeded your 'minus' scores and you show some RWA tendency. The higher the percentage, the higher you will score on the scale.
Consequently, a score of 100% on what is in my hub would be equivalent to the 180 on the survey Credence found. A true zero score (i.e. the sum of the pluses and minuses equaled zero) would probably be equivalent to 80 on the other test.Thanks for the clarity, if I calculated correctly then -80 (my score) divided by 22 (the number of questions) gives -3.6%.
Not quite. Which test did you get a minus 80 on? Was it the RWA test in my hub?
Let's say you scored 80% on my test. That means your total score was about 72 out of 110. Now, if you total was minus 80 points, then it should have reported 0%.
I adamantly disagree!
I challenge every political writer/blogger/commenter here, to out-We the People, me!! To out-We the People, conservatives, in general!
Conservatives are all about limiting the Gov and their power.....and returning that power back to the people, where it belongs, where it has always belonged (.) period.
Every move that the left; liberals, progressives, Marxists, Dems, make, knocks this Country down another notch!
It costs we the people in more ways than one.
It weakens us, it robs us of our entrepreneurial spirit and our resolve, a little more with each power-hungy, greedy, un-American move the left makes!
It robs us of our self worth!
We are less safe as a result of the constant ineptness of this Administration!
Biden came in day one and took, took, took, from us!
The writing is on the wall!
Speaking of "the wall", now (at election time) the Dems play make-believe!? Make believe we never stopped the building of the southern border wall, make believe we never stopped
securing the border!
Make believe we didn't cause the U.S.'s short -lived energy independence, make believe we didn't make more people dependent on the Gov. Make believe we didn't pull the rug out from under a lot of American workers, when we took away their jobs; directly affecting their life, their liberty, their pursuit of happiness!!
What a bunch of liars they are; insisting NOW (at election time) that they have our backs, they are all about the people...what a bunch of b.s.!!!
The only ones who believe anything this bunch NOW has to say.....have their hands over their ears and are making loud unintelligible noises!
Listen to them when they tell you that they are all about a security wall and getting energy prices and grocery prices down. Believe them when they tell you that they are finally focused on our safety, security and well-being and less focused on their own personal vendettas and endeavors.
What will it take to convince me otherwise?
The Gov, fading into the background, leaving "We the People" alone, free to get back to the pursuits which make us happy, free to live OUR American dream, not one chosen for us... this MUST include, leaving our children/our grandchildren alone and ending the constant propaganda, indoctrination and fear -mongoring and the constant message that we need them more than they need us!
Come on America....can you ever see any of this happening?
You have to recognize this scam of a Party by now!
Time to vote them OUT permanently!
Do your homework, make a habit of fact-checking, especially anything and everything that instantly rises to the top in your searches!!
Let's take OUR Country back, elect true conservatives, return the power to the people where it belongs...where it has always belonged!
God Bless America!"Conservatives are all about limiting the Gov and their power" - That may be what they SAY they want to do, but historically and currently, their actions make that a lie. All Conservatives have ACTUALLY done is limit people's freedom (or in the case of women and blacks, keep them from gaining). All Conservatives have actually done is create authoritarian states.
BTW, are you a speechwriter for Tucker Carlson? Seriously.A speechwriter, why thank you!
A compliment coming from you, seriously?
My words are straight from the heart, I hope that your many readers and followers, will consider them.
Have a great day!
Authoritarians in general? After reading through the thread Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) was mentioned. What about Left Wing Authoritarianism? Is it a myth as some propose?
An interesting paper, Right-wing Authoritarianism, Left-wing Authoritarianism, and pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism may offer some light on the possibility.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365073/
Of course one only needs to read the online forums to see an authoritarian traits exhibited by members of both sides of the fence. Perhaps it is only a difference of topic? Perhaps it is simply a personality trait that has a political catalyst allowing for it to be exercised by the individual?
7 Characteristics of Authoritarian People, According to Psychology
https://exploringyourmind.com/7-charact … an-people/Yep, of course there's Left-wing Authoritarianism; China and Russia, and North Korea being fine examples e.g. communism.
Interesting perspective when considering what LWA is.
What is a LWA other than an authoritarian who is on the extreme left, a rare commodity in America.
How do you make that conclusion? Are you saying there are no authoritarian personality types?
The dark authoritarians: Profiling the personality, emotional style, and authoritarian attitudes of the major American parties
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 6921006772"Are you saying there are no authoritarian personality types?" - Where did I say or even suggest that?
Seems to me that authoritarianism is all the same coming from Right of Left, intrinsically undemocratic, controlling people's thoughts and actions. I believe that people who score low on RWA, would on the principle, score low on LWA.
Under what AUTHORITY does Joe Biden:
*Forgive college/university loan debt {and who picks up that slack?}
*Endlessly give to Ukraine {above and beyond anything realistic}
*Disrupt our energy independence {destroying the livelihoods of millions of Americans in the process}
*Neglect the security of our southern border {leaving us wide open to terrorism, wide open to cartels and drug trafficking and wide open to human trafficking}
*Leave Allies and billions of dollars worth of military equipment behind in Afghanistan {and for what purpose?}I am really surprised you even have to ask that question, lol. Your side, like Trump, doesn't have clue as to how government works, so you need people to educate your side.
And again, you are just spouting right-wing propaganda or just don't understand reality.
I agree. In essence authoritarianism is authoritarianism. As Eso pointed out the test is to show if you are follower of the right wing as the authority not if one is an authoritarian.
For giggles for the curious the following link is a test for LWA
https://www.idrlabs.com/left-wing-autho … m/test.phpThat test tried to mimic the real RWA test (which says nothing about Right or Left). It only reflects a persons likelihood to blindly follow an authoritarian figure. This test fails miserably.
I scored 80, as expected. It was fun working through so many loaded questions (a few were legitimate questions). Then it says "Your answers suggest a high degree of left-wing authoritarianism", which is of course ridiculous. I am the furthest thing from an authoritarian.
What it is supposed to say was that I am highly susceptible to follow an authoritarian figure, which is also not true.
What my score from this "test" shows is I have a high preference for liberal values over conservative ones.Oddly enough, i scored a 54 on the LWA. I don't want to shut down participation by the Right and dismiss them in their entirety even though their values and agenda are not ones that I could support.
I would be no better than what I accuse Righties of in RWA.Apparently you guys have more tolerance of Trump Republicans than I do, lol.
You need to join us. How come ya don't?
Interesting! So, from what I can gather through inference is the test offered at your hub does not have loaded questions? I agree with you that both the RWA tests (Links below) and the LWA only determine what spectrum one lies on being liberal/left wing or conservative/right wing. Neither determine if one has an authoritarian personality, which is "The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect." The inference is with the test that one would be inclined toward an authority figure of either persuasion based mostly on values.
I am no expert nor an authority as you are. From the studies I have read their is contention between if the RWA F-scale test measures personality or attitude in the world of psychology. There is an obvious difference between those two. One of those studies says, "The RWA scale is a personality test disguised as an attitude survey". hmmmm . . .
Let's face it the test is bias to begin with. It tells you the answer before taking the test. It solidifies confirmation bias before answering. There is a strong reliance upon if one desires to be a RWA or not contrast actually giving thought to a question and then answering honestly. And, it uses cognitive dissonance too. Competing values of to punish contrast the ideal are evident.
Perhaps onw may see that with the scores shared by those who took the one Cred offered. Almost all of them were below thirty and most know their political stance if they read these forums. So, it is somewhat obvious. Also, one could surmise most of the answers were 'Strongly agree' or 'Strongly Disagree', thus the scores so close to one side in a range of 20 - 180.
For giggles as a scientific study of if the questions are loaded or not as well as the possibility they mainly determine political bent offered below are four RWA tests, the previous LWA test, and a test using both RWA and LWA
Analysis of Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) Followers: An Insight Into Donald J. Trump and His Followers by ESO
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … llower-RWA
Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale by openpsychometrics
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/
The RWA Scale by panojohnson.com offered by Cred and many used in this forum
http://www.panojohnson.com/automatons/rwa-scale.xhtml
Right-Wing Authoritarianism Test by IDRlabs
https://www.idrlabs.com/right-wing-auth … m/test.php
Left-Wing Authoritarianism Test by IDRlabs
https://www.idrlabs.com/left-wing-autho … m/test.php
An interesting one is Right-Wing/Left-Wing Authoritarianism Test by IDRlabs
https://www.idrlabs.com/right-wing-left … m/test.php
Thanks for discussion as I like to learn and learning is having an open mind to possibility as I see it."So, from what I can gather through inference is the test offered at your hub does not have loaded questions? " - No, they don't. They are paraphrases of the questions used Prof Altemeyer's RWA survey; one he has been using for decades in conducting his research. The questions are designed to identify those with a high degree of the traits that define those who are susceptible to being influenced by authoritarians. The ones in what you offered are parodies of serious research.
If you look through the various surveys there is a distinct difference between mine, openpsychometrics, panojohnson and the idrlabs.
Nowhere in the first three are their mentions of conservatives, liberals, Republicans, and Democrats while the later uses those and other hot-button phrases "liberally".
That is why the first three are unbiased assessments while the idrlabs is highly biased.
BTW, I scored 36 on the one Cred found.
"As Eso pointed out the test is to show if you are follower of the right wing as the authority" - Almost. The test shows your propensity to blindly follow ANY authoritarian. If you are the Right, it would be a Right-wing SDO. If you are on the Left, then their hero would be a Left-wing SDO. The test simply shows the likelihood you will follow your chosen authoritarian of any strip
The term Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers comes from Prof Altemyer's study. I forget the exact details but what sticks in my mind is that in analyzing a group of legislatures (I forget which country) the majority of the high-scoring ones sat on the right side of the aisle which, for them, were the conservatives. Hence - RWA. At least that was his story.
That falls in line with the results of other groups he chose to analyze - the more right-wing politically you were, the higher the chance of scoring high on his survey.
That said, as I have said and shown before, the extremes of any group can score high on the RWA scale. It is just much more common on the Right.
Also, the characteristics I gave are NOT for authoritarians. Instead, they are for the people most likely to be influenced by them.
There is a special class of authoritarians - the ones that have a Social Dominator Orientation (SDO). Wikipedia says: "Individuals who score high in SDO desire to maintain and, in many cases, increase the differences between social statuses of different groups, as well as individual group members. Typically, they are dominant, driven, tough, and relatively uncaring seekers of power. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world."
I am smelling a peculiar smell of a certain evil brand of "democracy."
Let us re-make the recipe shall we?
"It is a given that all the democrats and all the media are authoritarians. In fact, they are wannabe dictators. Many millions of Americans have bought into their unAmerican, anti-democratic message and give full-throated support for their take-over of government institutions."
This freedom loving country can see through their lies and is willing to fight to death to protect it's good citizens / sovereigns.The difference is - what you write is NOT supported by any facts, mine is.
Thomas Jefferson said:
"If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."Then why aren't those on the right doing just that? It is not an accident that it is the less educated and informed who provide the backbone to Trump's insurrection.
Why do people support their authorities?
Because the haven't learn how to think for themselves. Then hand over their power to authorities to run their lives. W
Meanwhile 80% do not like their Government. Sounds deeply conflicting and very little solution in sight.In many cases, it has nothing to do with "learning". To some extent people are genetically programmed to obey authority figures. It is just a matter of degree. Yes, education can overcome that bias, but that means they need to become educated first - and that doesn't happen enough.
There is a reason the less educated lean toward Trump and the more educated lean away from Trump.Yes, you are right, the brain surgeons and rocket scientists are the stupid ones since most of them supported Trump.
And your source for that piece of nonsense is ...?
"For instance, 67 percent of surgeons, 65 percent of anesthesiologists, and 62 percent of urologists in the study sample were registered Republicans,"
Look it up yourself.Trump wasn't even president when the data for that report was collected, lol. So they could hardly have voted for Trump.
As is normal for your side, you left out critical facts to bias your view. The main one is that "most doctors are registered Democrats". The ones you listed are exceptions to the rule. Most people call that deceitful. Don't you?
Just so others won't be fooled, here is the source for his numbers.
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing … Democrats.
Where is the non biased source for this stupid and false comment?
"Other studies at the world-leading Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research suggest that many of our traits are more than 50% inherited, including obedience to authority, vulnerability to stress, and risk-seeking. Researchers have even suggested that when it comes to issues such as religion and politics, our choices are much more determined by our genes than we think."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 … 2Dseeking.Which says nothing about Trump.
I really have to stop even bothering with your comments but you are so obviously wrong and make such inflammatory statements that I feel I need to reply.
Glad you found a source on one of the most leftist journals out there. You do realize if the fact checkers are as biased as the reporters that a journal has no integrity? I see you making snide comments all the time about FOX, but you need to see that CNN is just as wrong as FOX. And the Guardian?I do understand that anybody and anything that disagrees with your fantasy world is biased.
What did my comment have to do with Trump? You seem to be wandering.
Speaking of wandering - you do realize don't you that The Advisory Board was the source for YOUR comment, lol. I just posted it which you wouldn't do.
Fake Fox News is a propaganda arm for Trump. The others you mentioned report the truth.Why do you persist in believing that anyone that disagrees with you is living in a fantasy world? Only someone who deep down knows he is wrong would resort to that sort of argument.
Because they often are. Until you can present truths and facts, rather than pronouncements, to back up your statements, you must, by definition, be living in a fantasy world - in this case, Trump's.
Dr. Mark, many liberals are just as authoritarian as the so-called conservatives. There are authoritarians from BOTH sides. Democratic run cities are unsafe because of the rising crime rate. NYC mayor Eric Adams is one of the worst mayors in history. NYC's crime rate is returning to 1970s level. Mr. Esoteric's statements are pure hyperbole. He refuse to acknowledge that during Biden's presidency has worsened the country. His so-called Inflation Reduction Act will result in taxing the middle class to death. He refuse to acknowledge this. He is blindly following Biden, praising how "great" a president he is. Really now???
Dr Mark, the extreme liberals or leftist are becoming the new conservatives while many rational conservatives are becoming the new liberals. There is inverse psychology working here.Actually, you are right. There high-scoring RWAs and high-scoring Social Dominators (that would be like Trump) on both the Right and the Left. What the studies have found out, however, it is much, much more common among the Right. Even my little surveys shows that as well.
For example: For those who self-identified as being on the Right, 18% scored high to very high while 56% scored very low.
For those who self-identify as being moderate, 5% scored high to very high and 81% scored very low. (for this category, I need several moderates to take the survey).
For those who self-identify as being Left, 3% scored high to very high while 86% scored very low.
This is very much in line with the findings from social scientists who have do the research. So, it should be clear to you that the tendency to follow authoritarians is concentrated on the Right.
(Nathan, when you took the survey, did you identify as a moderate?)
"His so-called Inflation Reduction Act will result in taxing the middle class to death. " - Folks, this is a wonderful example of misinformation since it clearly not true and not backed-up with any proof (because there isn't any)
If you say so, lol. Thinking people know different. BTW - still no facts or truths from your side, just insults.
Scott: In the link you provided the score is from -88 to +88; I scored -80, which in the articles says:-
“A score between -88 and -36 means: Your answers describe a person who has a low degree of RWA follower characteristics, well below the norm in America”.
I identify myself as a Socialist, which is far more left than the Democrats.
However, when it came to voting, the four options are in percentages rather than score; I wasn’t quite sure what percentage -80 would be, so I haven’t voted yet – but if you can let me know what percentage -80 is then I’d be more than happy to add my vote in the appropriate box.Hmmm, I need to go back and look. I don't remember the survey going from -80 to +80.
As to being socialist. Is that a socialist-socialist (i.e. the gov't owns the levers of distribution and production) or a Bernie Sanders type Democratic - Socialist?
Good question Scott.
All the main socialist parties in the UK are ‘Democratic Socialists’, democracy is at the heart of their philosophy; it’s the fundamental difference between ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ e.g. Democratic Socialists are opposed to one-party systems like in Russia and China (Communism).
However, government ownership, and sometimes control, of industries and services is part and parcel of British Politics; and is known as ‘Nationalisation’.
Following their landslide victory in the post war General Election, Nationalisation of industry was a central policy of the Labour (socialist) Government when they came to power in 1945. The Industries they ‘Nationalised’ included the ‘Bank of England’, the Coal Industry, Aviation, Telecommunications, Public Transport, Electricity and Gas, Iron and Steel, and the NHS (created in 1948). In 1975 the Labour Government bailed out British Leyland, British car manufacturer who had 40% share of the UK car market, by partially nationalising it. I guess you should also include the BBC (founded in 1922 by the Liberal Government), and Channel 4 TV (also State owned) founded by the Conservative Government in 1982.
Apart from things like the Bank of England, the BBC and the NHS etc. (all State owned), during the 1980s Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) systematically privatised virtually all ‘nationalised industries’; except for the Coal Industry, which she shut down for political reasons.
Railways Full Circle:
• In 1948 the railways were nationalised (State owned and controlled) by Labour (Socialist Government) and was renamed ‘British Railways’.
• In 1994 British Railways was privatised by the Conservative Government; and split into two business operations – The rail track and stations as one private business, and the train operators as another private business.
• In 2002 Railtrack went bankrupt and was subsequently taken back into Government Ownership and Control by Labour (Socialist Government) e.g. re-nationalised.
The privatisation of British Railways has always been controversial because in private hands since the 1990s the cost of rail travel (which used to be cheap) has soared, as the train operators divert huge profits to their shareholders rather than re-investing in the rail-stock.
• In opinion polls, 64% of the British Public support renationalising British Railways; and in 2021, following public outcry with rail prices being hyped well above the rate of inflations yet again, the Conservative Government conceded to the fact that privatisation of the railways was a failure, and are now set to re-nationalise rail travel as from 2023; the new nationalised railway company (State owned and controlled by the Conservative party) is to be named “Great British Railways”.
Gas and Electricity (National Grid):
• The National Grid was nationalised (State owned and controlled) by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 1947.
• It was privatised by the Conservatives in 1990.
• However, last year the Conservative Government reluctantly concluded that in order for the Government to meet its legal requirement of ‘carbon net zero’ by 2050 it will have to take partial control of the national grid (partial nationalisation) – So the Conservative Government is set to partly nationalise the National Grid by 2024 to aid the Government in meeting its legal requirement of achieving carbon net zero by 2050.
Britain is the only country in the world were achieving carbon net zero by 2050 is a legal requirement (set in law). It only came about because Theresa May didn’t trust that Boris Johnson would be committed to transitioning from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy. So in her last week as Prime Minister (before she handed power over to Boris) Theresa May rushed Legislation through Parliament to ‘tie’ Boris’s hands; her Legislation had the full support of the Opposition Parties and the House of Lords, so it only took just a few days to push through Parliament and into Law.
So in answer to your question, I am a democratic socialist that also supports government control and ownership of essential services.
Bernie Sanders would make a good Labour Politician, but he would be politically on the right of the British Labour party (more of a Blairite), whereas I’m more on the left of the Party (more of a Corbynite).I had a feeling, lol.
America never went the full nationalization route, but achieved a mini-version of that through regulation of basic industries that served the public. Reagan did away with most of that during his terms. The results were similar, higher prices and poorer service. Particularly hurt was hospitals where the main reason for having them was to help people but ultimately devolved into a profit-making enterprise with patients coming in second or third place to the "bottom-line".
The one thing that keeps the bad parts of capitalism in check are good regulations. That is why it worked so well in America until 1994 when conservatives took over and started the rush back to "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" paradigm.
Interesting Scott; thanks for the feedback.
Absolutely “The one thing that keeps the bad parts of capitalism in check are good regulations.” In the UK Political Parties funding and expenditure is heavily ‘Regulated’ by the ‘Electoral Commission’. The Electoral Commission was created by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 2000 and is Independent of Government.
What does the Electoral Commission do? https://youtu.be/T5mg5OceG-I
The Rules of the Electoral Commission prevents any political party from being funded by wealthy individual or Industry e.g. to prevent ‘pulling of the purse string’ for ‘political favour’ (bribery and corruption). Thus Businesses don’t have a financial hold over the Conservative Party, leaving the Conservative party free to worry about appeasing the voters, who do have the power to keep them in ‘Office’ or kick them out of power.
Consequently, it leaves the Conservative party free to ‘Regulate’ industry when and where appropriate. One side effect being that it gives the Conservatives leverage to threaten ‘Regulation’ if the Industry don’t ‘self-regulate’ to the satisfaction of the Government; a tool which the Conservatives have used to good effect on a number of occasions over the years e.g. ‘food health standards’ and ‘Freedom of the Press’; the latter being the British newspapers offering to ‘self-regulate’ during the consultation period of the ‘Safety on Line’ Bill currently going through Parliament – an offer which the Government has accepted e.g. if and when the Bill is passed into law the British Newspapers will be exempt from the Regulations (Freedom of the Press) on the understanding that they will self-regulate to a satisfactory level.
That is sad that American hospitals put profit before people. The NHS (National Health Service), which is Government Owned and Government Funded, has always been a thorn in the side of Conservative Governments since its creation in 1948 because it’s pure ‘socialism’. But 88% of the British Public (60% of Conservative voters) supports the NHS and want to keep the ‘status quo’, and thus the NHS is always a key issue in any General Elections, with every political part claiming that the NHS is ‘safe in their hands’; to claim otherwise would be political suicide.
For example in the UK 2019 General Election, the top 5 keys issues were (percentage of voters for whom these were key issues in General Election):-
• Brexit = 68% of voters
• NHS = 40%
• Crime = 28%
• Environment = 25%
• Economy = 25%"In the UK Political Parties funding and expenditure is heavily ‘Regulated’ by the ‘Electoral Commission’" - God, I wish ours was! Some 90 year old just gave $1.6 billion to an almost fascist-oriented PAC.
Our "Conservatives" say they hate regulation (unless it suits them, of course). They hate it so much, they will let uncaring corporations destroy Earth in the name of the bottom line.
It appears that the NHS is under constant attack by your Conservatives to drive such a high interest. Is getting rid of Brexit or keeping it such a driving factor of that percentage?
In 2021 the Conservative Party was fined £17,800 ($20,960) by the Electoral Commission because Boris Johnson (Prime Minister) accepted an illegal donation of £67,000 ($78,895) from a wealthy donor.
To level the playing field and give smaller political parties a fighting change, in the 2019 General Election the Electoral Commission capped spending at £30,000 ($35421) for each constituency, so if a political party stood a candidate in each of the 650 UK constituencies the maximum it would be legally allowed to spend on its election campaign would be £19.5 million ($23 million); which I’m sure is peanuts compared to how much Trump spends on his election campaign.
At the time of the 2019 General Election the UK was still part of the EU, and with the country split on the subject it was a highly contentious subject during the 2019 General Election; and although it’s subsided from mainstream politics for now because we’ve now left the EU, so there is nothing more to debate on the matter, it hasn’t gone away entirely - Brexit may yet expedite the breakup (disintegration) of the UK and the question of EU membership is quite likely to resurface in politics in future decades as more people realise how isolated England has become from Europe!
Brexit has split the nation, and threatens the breakup of the UK:-
• Almost exactly half the UK population are pro Brexit, and almost exactly half the UK population are pro EU.
• The vast majority of Scottish people are pro EU, hence the Scottish Government are pressing ahead with a referendum in Scotland in Oct 2023 (Referendum on Scottish Independence) for Scotland to leave England and join the EU.
• The majority of people in Northern Ireland are pro EU, consequently in their Election earlier this year Sinn Fein won the majority of seats in the Northern Ireland Government for the first time ever; bringing Sinn Fein one step closer to fulfil their prime policy of calling for a referendum to re-unite Northern Ireland with Southern Ireland e.g. for Northern Ireland to leave England and become part of the Republic of Ireland, who themselves are members of the EU.
If Scotland and Northern Ireland get their way and breakaway from English rule, to join the EU, then that will put impetus on Wales to campaign to follow suit; further isolating England from Europe, putting pressure on England to re-join the EU.
Politically the Conservatives are pro-Brexit, the Labour Party is neutral on the subject and the Liberal Democrats prime policy is to re-join the EU. Therefore, next time in a General Election when no political party wins overall control (Hung Parliament) the Liberal Democrats will hold the ‘Balance of Power’ e.g. their support will be needed in order for one of the two main parties to form a Government; and as on previous occasions when the Liberal Democrats have held the balance of power, they will negotiate terms for their co-operation, one of the conditions being to run a referendum on EU membership.
NHS
In General Elections the NHS is the Conservative weak point, because it’s well known that the Conservative Party doesn’t like the NHS; so it gives the Opposition Parties plenty of ammunition to use against the Conservatives in election campaigns e.g. pointing out the Conservative’s subtle attempts to try to quietly privatise the NHS through the backdoor (hoping that no one would notice), and spending less on the NHS in ‘Real Terms’ e.g. after inflation. While in contrast the Conservatives deny all the accusations and claim they’ve spent more on the NHS than any other Government, showing graphs that show increase spending (in monetary terms).
In the Conservative Party 2019 General Election Manifesto, in an attempt to win over votes, Boris Johnson promised to build 40 new NHS hospitals; so far work has only begun on 8 new hospitals, so come the next General Election, the Conservative’s failure to deliver the 40 new NHS they promised will be ammunition for the Opposition Parties to use against the Conservatives.
That being said, in spite of the fact that back in the mid-1980s Margaret Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) made an unsuccessful attempt to abolish the NHS and replace it with an American style health service (she was stopped in her tracks by her own party); the Conservatives do support the NHS (albeit begrudgingly), for example the NHS hospital where I spent three weeks early last year when I was ill, was built by the Conservative Government in 2014, costing £430 million ($507 million) to build; and it’s a most wonderful hospital, as the following video shows:-
Southmead NHS Hospital, Bristol: https://youtu.be/741SRxcCozU"• Almost exactly half the UK population are pro Brexit, and almost exactly half the UK population are pro EU." - Do you think that is still true given the visible, even over here, damage Brexit is doing to your nation?
Your Boris Johnson is quite the scoundrel, isn't he. At least you were able to get rid of him. We had to suffer (and are still suffering) from Trump.
Yes you are right; opinion has shifted quite remarkably in favour of the EU since we’ve left. I’ve just looked at a selection of opinion polls and they all show the same picture (screen dumps of a couple below) e.g. a ‘poll of polls’ done over the last few months show that 53% of Brits feel we should re-join the EU while 47% feel we should stay out.
Yes, it’s in Boris Johnson’s nature to be a scoundrel; and yes it’s a relief that we can get rid of duff leaders between elections. Although the Conservatives have dumped Boris, their likely choice of new leader (Liz Truss) is setting them on course for bitter infighting within the party, in the lead up to the next General Election in 2024; and likely to lead the Conservatives into a humiliating defeat at the next General Election. Specifically, Liz Truss is an ‘old School’ Conservative, with old party values (hard-right-wing) e.g. advocating big tax cuts (benefitting mostly the wealthy) at the expense of the less well off, made worst by cutting services to pay for her tax cuts. Other senior Conservatives, including her rival in the leadership completion (Rishi Sunak) adamantly believe that tax cuts at this time will cripple the UK economy and force even more people into poverty. So a number of heavy weight Conservative politicians within the party are set to be a thorn in her side, fighting her every inch of the way, during her premiership in the lead up to the next General Election (Conservative Party in-fighting); which will serve to benefit Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next General Election.
Rishi Sunak’s confidence that Liz Truss has the wrong policies for this moment in time is born-out by the fact that Rishi Sunak’s policy as Chancellor of the Exchequer during the pandemic ensured most ordinary people had money to pay their bills, taking the burden off business, and in the process saved millions of jobs e.g. during the pandemic the government paid everyone, including the self-employed, who couldn’t work because of the pandemic, 80% of their normal wages – which helped to keep the economy going during the crisis.
In the first two charts the black line is Pro EU and the blue line is Pro-Brexit: The period runs from Jan 2020 to July 2022.
Interesting. While a referendum today might go for rejoining the EU, it is a lot closer than I would have thought.
Your Liz sounds a lot like our Liz (Cheney). The difference probably is that I respect the hell out of Cheney for standing up for America even though I think her politics totally suck.
Yeah, I think the reason the difference isn’t as large as one would imagine is that the UK left the EU during the pandemic; and a lot of the downside of leaving e.g. disruption in supply chains and higher prices have been masked by the disruption in supply chains and higher prices caused by the pandemic and the current Ukrainian war – and of course the Conservative Government always blames the pandemic or Ukrainian war rather that Brexit, in spite of the fact that the TV News Media points out all the delays caused by the additional administrative costs (paperwork) at the ports, and the costs of tariffs on imported goods, caused by Brexit – data which is freely available from Independent Government Departments, such as the ONS (Office of National Statistics), for those who can be bothered to read them.
In summary, the Conservatives are using the pandemic and the Ukrainian war as a ‘smoke screen’ to hide the negative effects of Brexit.
• Brexit cost the UK billions in lost trade and tax revenues (as reported on British TV News in June 2022): https://youtu.be/S0osFjN4MX0
• Holiday chaos: Disruption continues in Dover as UK and France argue over who is to blame (includes a clip where Liz Truss is deflecting the blame away from Brexit)(as reported on British TV, July 2022): https://youtu.be/6SOFONH-4M0
I looked Liz Cheney up on Wikipedia. A couple of things that struck me is that, according to Wikipedia, Cheney opposes the no-first-use nuclear policy; has supported the use of torture; and in 2013 announced her opposition to same-sex marriage, although in 2021 she did vote for the ‘Respect for Marriage Act of 2022’.
On the first point, where Liz Cheney opposes the ‘no-first-use’ nuclear policy; that’s in stark contrast to the previous Labour Leader (Jeremy Corbyn) who advocates the UK abolishing it’s nuclear defence (unilateral disarmament) – but neither extreme in my opinion is wise!That all makes perfect sense.
(BTW, our Liz may have changed her mind because her sister, who is gay, was giving her a lot of pushback, lol).
That explains your Liz Cheney change of mind on gay marriages; peer pressure.
Castlepaloma, where do you get your ideas from?
Where you say:
“Why do people support their authorities? Because they haven't learn how to think for themselves. Then hand over their power to authorities to run their lives”
FYI in the free democratic countries in the West, including the USA, UK, EU, Australia etc., Governments of all political persuasions are elected to power by ‘the people’; that is ‘democracy’.
Also, where you say:
“Meanwhile 80% do not like their Government”
Where do you get such an idea from? The Government in power (in any free democratic country) is the political party who won the most votes in the last election; and if/when that political party falls out of favour with the voting public they will be kicked out of ‘Office’ (Power) come the next election; that is ‘democracy’.
An old saying goes, "You may be able to defeat a person's arguments, but you will never defeat their delusions."
My Esoteric, I don't think it is worth the time of most people to argue with your delusions of facts and reality.
They are simply something to look at and be amazed by when they occur.See, that is the problem with your analysis. I have facts and truth on my side and you simply do not. All your side has to offer is unreality and delusions, your side has nothing else.
For example, most on your side believe Trump won the election. That is simply delusional.
You have it completely backwards The real dictators are those people who overthrew the 2020 election and installed the puppet government They are destroying our economy and censoring all those people who dare speak out against them like Trump and DeSantis They are fascists who believe that they deserve power and print money to they extent of causing hyper inflation You guys who see something different than this are either completely naive or are part of this problem
I guess Fox didn't report that Biden won by over 7 million votes and 5% and that the Trump insurrectionists didn't present a single verifiable piece of evidence that what fraud may have occurred would have changed the outcome in any state. BTW - of the few instances of fraud that were found, it was YOUR side committing them.
If anything our side might be falsely accused of being socialist. It is your side that is fascist.
Now that you have the facts, what do you say?
Oh also by the way People who speak the truth do not need to censor people
Worth repeating:
"... those who overthrew the 2020 election and installed the puppet government are the real dictators. They censor all those who dare to speak out against them and are destroying our economy. They are fascists who believe they deserve power. They are printing money, causing hyper inflation ..."
Thanks, hglick.Is it fair to say that those who believe Trump won the election are fools? Seems like an appropriate label to me for who else but a fool would deny the will of the voters and believe lies? Just saying.
And those of us who do speak the truth, don't censor like Trump does.
C'mon, Biden has a list of failures. The latest one is the so-called Inflation Reduction Act which will actually tax the middle class into near oblivion. Also there is the college debt forgiveness plan which will further tax the middle class. Not to mention the influx of illegals which is burdening the American economy since more than half these illegals are unskilled. C'mon man, GET REAL. GET REAL. Stop looking at the world thru rose colored glasses.
"The latest one is the so-called Inflation Reduction Act which will actually tax the middle class into near oblivion."
How so exactly?And why do you consider that a failure? Because it was a bill the Democrats passed? It seems funding clean energy is win. Limiting drug prices for Medicare is a clear win. I guess conservatives think it was a terrible idea to put a $2,000 cap on drug costs and a $35 cap on an insulin prescription (which probably costs only 10 cents to make).
Yep, in Conservative eyes, I guess those things that help the earth and people are failures. Sheesh.
"Also there is the college debt forgiveness plan which will further tax the middle class. " - Let's see if I have this right. Forgiving a certain amount of debt on middle class education costs somehow turns into a tax on the middle class in Conservative logic. Interesting.
And here is another Conservative myth "Not to mention the influx of illegals which is burdening the American economy since more than half these illegals are unskilled. " - Study after study show they DO NOT burden the American economy. They actually help it. (I have provided those studies in several other forums so you should have no problem finding them.
MeThinks you watch too much Tucker Carlson's propaganda machine."C'mon, Biden has a list of failures."
We are currently getting lead pipes replaced and a crumbling bridge fixed thanks to the Infrastructure bill. Our foolish senators and representatives all voted no but are are now taking credit for bringing this repair money to our state!
You see, people like clean water and safe bridges a whole lot more than vilifying books, gay people and limiting rights.
The culture wars don't get the job done. They "solve" problems that don't exist, in my opinion.I see you got no response, you must have flummoxed them.
Don't you understand Faye? Those kinds of social improvement are hated by Conservatives. They oppose spending money on clean water. They oppose spending money safe bridges. They just want to take our freedoms away. SAD.
Bingo and each time the Left in the U.S. {currently in control and participating in authoritarianism} take away from "we the people" (for our own good)
Each time they mock "we the people", putting us in our place, {because only they know what's best}
As they further grow that which is meant to be.....LIMITED, our Government, {forget chipping away, they've now taken sledge hammers to it} this great REPUBLIC of ours...
they move the United States of America that much closer to full-blown communism!!!
WHY a complicit core group of American citizens assist in their own downfall, I can't begin to explain, but I pray they will begin to see the writing on our blasted and broken walls!????
America is nowhere close to becoming a communist county; America is far more right wing than the UK; and the UK, which has far more Socialism than the USA e.g. the NHS, is far from being anything like communism.I came across several articles and write-ups, while researching the candidates we'd be voting for or against in the Florida Primary yesterday, 8/23/22.
They were all similar in content, as they described the "extremism of the Right".
Do you want to guess what is considered extreme to the Left in America today? Faith, Freedom, Family, Patriotism, Capitalism.....just to name a few things, "threatening our Democracy" (their words, not mine)
That's not all, apparently, wanting to know and be involved in what our kids and our grand kids are being taught in school, is EXTREME on our part!?!
Wanting the power which our government holds, to be limited {for obvious reasons one would hope....} is EXTREME.
In other words, everything that this Nation was founded on, closing in on 250 years, is being promoted as extreme.
Fortunately, Florida hasn't taken the bait so far!That is all ass-backwards from my perspective. I can't think of anything more crucial than the political removal of Republicans and rightwing politicians from the state. That bait is more of a lure.
Yeah we are dangerous with all of that Faith and Freedom talk.......
Well yes, because far right extremists only recognize one Faith and that freedom only belongs to certain people.
Not true, people {for now} are still free to worship as they please and freedom {for now} belongs to every individual.
I absolutely love how you qualified your statement with "for now"
The far right would like to see those rights disappear.Wrong again Faye, we aren't the ones on the progressive fast track away from what has always worked here, a Republic.
America has always been on a progressive track - that is why we "progressed" from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution. Your side Opposed that. That is why we "progressed" from only landed white males being able to vote to all American having the right to vote, which YOUR SIDE opposed and is trying to turn back as I write. That is why we "progressed" from Conservatives owning and abusing Blacks to a time when they were officially set free. YOUR SIDE started a Civil War over that one.
I would suggest you learn your history about how conservatism has held this REPUBLIC back from the greatness it deserves.While I believe in progressivism, extreme liberalism is destroying America. Because of the defunding of the police & other liberal policies regarding criminals, the crime rate in liberal ran cities have increased 200%. NYC & other liberal cities are jungles. Also the influx of illegals are exhausting the social networks. Biden is leading America to hell. America is getting worse instead of better. Wake up Esoteric. Biden, like Obama, is a disaster. Eric Adams is a big joke.
"extreme liberalism is destroying" - You keep saying that without proof or even examples. Therefore, it must not be true and is just pure propaganda.
On immigrants, again, you say they without facts. The facts prove otherwise.
In fact, the rest of what you write is pure Right-wing, factless propaganda scripted by Putin.
Arent you a Democrat? I seem to remember the Republicans against slavery and the Dems defending it.
Isnt that YOUR side?Dr. Mark, Dems like to play make-believe, pretending there was some big switcheroo of political parties, here in the States. They try to claim Lincoln, they try to claim ending slavery, they try to claim giving women and minorities the vote, but NOT TRUE, the Republican Party gets full credit for all of that!
But credit where credit is due, the Dems did bring us social security {a portion of our hard-earned income, held by the Gov, for "safe-keeping" until we retire} for they believe that government is much more responsible than an individual could possibly ever be. They also get full credit for Obamacare. Basically, every program which royally costs us, in more than ways the one, credit the Dems!You definitely need to go back to school and learn your history and stop paying attention to Right-wing propaganda. You would do yourself and this nation a big favor.
Again, you don't get to change history simply because you are on the wrong side of it!
Again, you seem to be displaying a lack of understanding of American political history (or attempting to deceive). Back in the days of slavery, the Democrats were the Conservative Party while Lincoln and his Republicans were the Liberals.
That is why using Party labels is meaningless when talking about events prior to 1940. In 1994, all of the remaining conservative Southern Democrats moved over to the Republican Party.I am not being deceitful only pointing out the deceitfulness of your arugment. Own up, it was YOUR side.
How is stating facts deceitful>
It is a fact that Democrats were extremely conservative from the 1700s through 1940 and you can't prove otherwise.
It is a fact that Democrats became more and more liberal from 1940 on, especially as the Southern Democrats became Republicans.
It is a fact that Republicans were liberal from 1862 to 1940.
It is a fact that the Republican Party took a hard conservative turn with the onset of Newt Gingrich.
It is a fact that the Republican Party entirely lost its way with the advent of Trump.
It is a fact that you can't prove any of that to the contrary, no matter how hard you try. It is a fact that if you had studied, even a little bit, American political history, you would know all of that to.Why do you feel the need to make a snide comment at the end of your arguments? Are you that weak in your beliefs? Or perhaps you are really so naiive that you think that everyone that studies American history and politics is on your side?
Why is it "snide" to observe your lack of knowledge about American political history? The history is not up for interpretation, it is a matter of fact and has "no sides".
It is a fact that the Democratic Party, prior to 1940, was at times more conservative than the radicalized Trump Republicans are today. (Actually, that is unfair. Trump Republicans aren't conservative, they are just radicalized.)
It is a fact that Republicans, prior to 1940, were as liberal as the Democrats are today.
No matter how much you try to deny the truth, those are the facts.
(And why did you deflect away by not proving what I said was wrong?)Why did you not address the last question with one of your snide comments? Are you really so naive that you think everyone that studies American political history is on your side?
Yes, your side.Try actually reading my reply, it might clear things up for you.
I did, and the FACT is that you are avoiding the question.
Sorry, since it is clear I didn't avoid anything, I can't help you out of your dilemma.
Freedom does not belong to women in Red states. Also, your side is trying to limit what people can worship to fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity (basically cults).
Oh, c'mon now. You are living in Fantasyland.
Go try to terminate your pregnancy in Texas carrying around a fetus with no skull but whose heart is still beating.
Yes you are dangerous because all of the so-called "faith and freedom" talk is just that - TALK. Your actions make those words a lie.
I have seen a couple of polls now that put Val Demmings ahead of the Trump Republican Rubio. It is looking to be a tight race which may turn on Rubio's opposition to women's right to privacy.
Let's rescreen the "Revenge of the Pink Panther".
The Dobbs decision and the Roe vs Wade reversal has the potential of costing the GOP big at the polls. It may be early to assess the amount of damage. But there are indications that this is not going away by November. We have an issue that has "legs"
It may even be possible to change GOP prospects for the House, this Fall
What documents were you reading? Cuz that sounds like 'right-wing' propaganda to me!
Yep, deflection. You make outlandish claims, yet not prepared to back it up with evidence!
Seems to be a common theme among Trump Republicans, lol.
"Do you want to guess what is considered extreme to the Left in America today? Faith, Freedom," - And where is your supporting facts for such an absurd statement?
While doing research on candidates yesterday. I agree it is absurd, but apparently flag flying, quoting scripture, loving one's country and things of that nature are now considered extreme to some on the left.
Actually, the Left does not find those things extreme. What the Left finds extreme is the degree of insincerity exhibited by those on the Right when that fly their flag, quote scriptures, and loving one's country.
Many Trump Republicans (as opposed to real Republicans who are sincere about those things) make a mockery of flying the flag to those of us who fought for it by trying to tear down what it stands for.
Many Trump Republicans quote scripture about loving thy neighbors and do not harm while they full-throatily advocate stripping women of their freedoms and putting them in harms way by restricting the medical care they can receive.
How do Trump Republicans show they are "loving their country" when they are doing everything in their power to destroy it INCLUDING starting, participating in, and supporting an insurrection at the Capitol of the United States. Only traitors to their country does that.
BTW, your side is the furthest thing from "We the People" and "patriotic", your side is the antitheist of it. Patriots don't lie about who won a free and fair election. Patriots don't go try to shoot up FBI offices. Patriots don't steal classified documents and put national security at risk as Trump has done. Patriots don't do those things but your side does - in spades. Bottom line, your side is the least patriotic of Americans since your hero Jefferson Davis and his gang caused a Civil War.
"that which is meant to be.....LIMITED" - Your side is demonstrating a total lack of understanding of what we behind the creation of the United States of America - and it wasn't a "limited government". It was just the opposite. Had our founder wanted a so-called "limited government" they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation. If fact, your counterparts in the 1700s tried very hard to stop the creation of today's America. THAT is your side's legacy - opposing America - Just as your side is trying to do today.
Maybe one individual switched parties, but you don't get to change history, simply because you are on the wrong side of it.
Again, study your political history and you will find out how wrong you are. BTW - adamantly deny facts is a major characteristic of high-scoring RWA followers. That means you will follow your chosen authority figure, Trump in this case, without engaging your brain.
Deflect much? Trump isn't a part of this particular thread. History is and you are on the wrong side of it. Admit it to your fans and followers.
P.S. I follow Jesus Christ, I support Conservatives in office, in order to preserve our great Republic.Who said Trump was, I was just pointing out your orientation. And you are right, history is. And, it is obvious you are unaware of factual history and are a believer of the propaganda you are fed.
Lots of people follow Jesus, even more follow God, but your brand of it is fortunately in the minority of religious extremism.
I seriously doubt you support Conservatives in office. I bet you don't support Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, true conservatives and not fake ones like Masters, Green, Gatz, and Hageman. Assuming you know who they are, do you think William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk are RINOs?What I do find a little ironic is how you suggested that I was lying about what I came across in my research for the Primary. Many on the left are now seeing conservatives as "extreme" in matters that used to be mainstream and considered traditional; i.e. faith, family, freedom, but you are doing the same thing!!!
Since you have no answers and deflect with further insults, I will do you a big favor and remove myself from this particular conversation."Many on the left are now seeing conservatives as "extreme" in matters that used to be mainstream and considered traditional; i.e. faith, family, freedom, but you are doing the same thing!!!" - But THAT is NOT what you said, is it? You said Quote [b]" but apparently flag flying, quoting scripture, loving one's country and things of that nature are now considered extreme to some on the left." Unquote. You said Nothing about seeing "conservatives".
Also, where did I "deflect" and where did I insult? I was spot on in rebutting your comment.
PS what the heck are you saying?
1.) "It is a given (?) How so?
2.) that politicians like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis of Florida are authoritarians.(?) How so?
3.) In fact, they are wannabe dictators.(?) How so?
4.) Many millions of Americans have bought into their unAmerican, anti-democratic message and give full-throated support for their take-over of government institutions." Which ones?I am pretty sure he is addressing us in Orwellian newthink.
1) By simple observation.
2) By simple observation
3) By watching what they do
4) Those that voted for Trump the second time.
"The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect."
A personality type?
LOL! More like a deviation of the psyche!This is an "authoritarian" figure. Someone who "favors or enforces strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." This describes people like Hitler, Trump, Putin, DeSantis , and the like to a "T".
... how so with DeSantis? because he presents boundaries to protect what is good and decent?
I had a very long list of examples of how DeSantis is a quintessential authoritarian leader, but it disappeared. I will recreate it this evening.
OK, let's see if I can not fumble-finger this into oblivion again.
First let me say that DeSantis has proven to be much more of a dictator than Trump did (Trump may have wanted to, but DeSantis actually did things that qualify).
- DeSantis took over the legislature in many instances. The most blatant was substituting his personal redistricting map for the one the Florida legislature came up with and then brow-beat them into accepting it by threatening them.
- DeSantis illegally suspended an elected district attorney for false reasons because he disagreed with his position on criminalizing women and doctors. (That said, he just suspended several Broward County school board members (Democrats presumably) over not installing an alarm at Parkland Highschool. When you get into the details, however, it looks like they deserved the suspension.)
Now the more mundane stuff:
- He restricted what teachers can teach to conform with his own personal views.
- He discriminated against fellow LGBTQ citizens
- He effectively forbade transgender kids to be themselves in school
- He limited people's ability to peacefully protest
- He insured Blacks cannot have representation in proportion to their population by gerrymandering.
- He created an unnecessary election "security" office whose real purpose is to go after Democratic efforts to get out the vote.
- Florida voters said felons, in certain cases, can gain the right to vote. He effectively vetoed that.
- He restricted many Democrats ability to vote.
- He pushed for and signed a bill limiting tenure of professors he deems to be "indoctrinating" students.
- He went after private businesses who objected to his war against speaking about social justice
- He limited what teachers can teach to conform to his own warped view of the world.
- He pushed for and signed into law the Stop Woke act
- He pushed for and signed into law the Don't Say Gay act.
Just to list a few.Let me drill in to one of those with a recent report.
At 6 A.M. one morning last week, DeSantis' $1.1 million Gestapo election police, dressed in their Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) clothes and guns drawn, banged on one black man's door in South Florida with helicopters flying overhead. The man appeared in his underwear and they immediately arrested him and whisked him off to jail. Yes, he was a felon but had served his time and was well on his way to rejoining society.
What was this man's heinous crime that it took SWAT and helicopters and guns to arrest? He filled out a voter registration form given to him by people trying to register folks and received a voter ID card in return. He told them he couldn't vote because he was a felon and they advised him that he might qualify under Florida's Amendment 4. Thinking, because the State sent him an ID card, that he was one of those felons who are now allowed to vote under a new Florida voter-approved amendment, he voted!
Doesn't this remind you of Putin's KBG tactics?
This was not a one-off. At least five more cases have been filed by blacks arrested for so-called "voter fraud" because the State sent them a voter ID card.
You know what didn't deserve this kind of inhumane treatment? Three white folks from The Villages, a mainly Republican retirement community, who voted twice. What happened to them? Well, they weren't highlighted in DeSantis' victory news conference where the arrests of those blacks who were thrown in jail were. it wasn't SWAT pounding on their door early in the morning. They were allowed to join a pretrial "diversion" program to avoid jail time.
Yep, no racism here!
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/2 … -00053788YDeSantis is an a$$hole.
This is all political theatre. He picks on the most vulnerable, while a felon that is right under his nose is treated with kids gloves.
It is enough to encourage me to move back to Colorado, well almost.It is, but the Ms. boxed my ears about staying in Colorado as she resided in Hawaii and when you and I got acquainted, I was living in Hawaii as well.
She has an aversion to cold climates. So, I compromised with her and agreed to move here. Now, I only see snow on the TV.
While Colorado can be cold, I have experienced much colder living in the Northern Plains (Montana). The state's topography brings in lots of snow in season. Yet the dry climate and abundant sunshine keeps it from being lingering and depressing. But, as long as my wife lives, we will be in Florida.
The Colorado climate, the snow, is no longer a concern for me as I no longer have to work and be concerned about icy roads and slick commutes in the morning within the Denver area. And, there is always something pleasant about living where there are 4 seasons.
The Front Range, from Cheyenne, Wy. north, to Pueblo, Co., South on I-25 has become prohibitively expensive. That's the negative, but we boast of a highly educated and intelligent resident, all the same.
I heard an observation going to work yesterday that got me to thinking. What is the difference between the radical conservatism and hate mongering of Al Qaeda and the Trump Republicans? The only thing I can see is one is made up of extreme Muslims and the other extreme Christians. They both speak of violent revolution where the Jan 6 insurrection was a less physically damaging, but more emotionally damaging, 9/11.
I thought it time to dust this forum off given that Authoritarianism is where America is quickly heading.
Let's start with a definition and description and examples of authoritarianism.
AUTHORITARIANISM:
1. A form of government in which the governing body has absolute, or almost absolute, control. Typically this control is maintained by force, and little heed is paid to public opinion or the judicial system.
DESCRIPTION - Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.[1][2] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[3][4] States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have sometimes been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states. - Wikipedia
EXAMPLES:
* Putin's Russia
* Xi's China
* Un's North Korea
* Maduro's Venezuela
* Knocking on the door - Trump's America
2. A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.).An extremely relevant topic to revive, one myself and Credence were discussing recently. I compiled a list of authoritarian figures in America with relevant examples in case it was asked for:
Authoritarian conservative individuals
-Donald Trump
Centralized executive power, challenged election outcomes, and regularly undermined institutional checks and media credibility.
- Ron DeSantis
Exercised strict control over education, protest rights, and media in Florida, often leveraging state power for political gain.
-Greg Abbott
Pushed aggressive border enforcement and bypassed federal authority, consolidating power at the state level.
-Kristi Noem
South Dakota Governor known for heavy-handed executive actions, especially on protests and COVID-related mandates.
-Josh Hawley
Missouri Senator who challenged 2020 election certification, aligning with anti-democratic narratives.
-Marjorie Taylor Greene
Representative known for extremist rhetoric, promoting loyalty to ideology over democratic processes.
-Matt Gaetz
Vocal advocate for Trump-style populism, often pushing narratives that erode institutional credibility.
-Tom Cotton
Senator with strong support for expanded state surveillance and harsh criminal enforcement.
-Stephen Miller
Former Trump advisor who architected strict immigration policies and centralized immigration authority.
-Mike Pence
As Vice President, defended many of Trump’s power grabs, though later resisted efforts to overturn the election.
Authoritarian Liberal individuals
-Gavin Newsom
Used emergency powers expansively during COVID-19 and has been accused of minimizing legislative oversight.
-Andrew Cuomo
Exercised near-total control over New York’s pandemic response and was accused of retaliating against dissenters.
-Rahm Emanuel
As Chicago Mayor, was criticized for suppressing police misconduct evidence and operating with little transparency.
-Eric Adams
Current NYC Mayor criticized for expanding surveillance and backing aggressive policing policies with minimal accountability.
-Lori Lightfoot
Former Chicago Mayor who imposed strict protest controls and centralized pandemic decisions.
-Jay Inslee
Washington Governor used extended emergency powers and was accused of sidelining legislative processes.
-Gretchen Whitmer
Michigan Governor who enforced strict COVID measures, drawing backlash for executive authority concentration.
-Nancy Pelosi
As House Speaker, tightly controlled legislative agenda, drawing criticism for limiting intra-party dissent.
-Chuck Schumer
Senate Majority Leader known for strong caucus discipline and using procedural tools to limit debate.
-Barack Obama
Expanded surveillance programs and targeted whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, raising civil liberty concerns.
Our conversation was about the American youth seeing American politics and sociopolitics as a growing battle to choose which side would claim the throne, and how neither side has any trust from the youth. It's a weird landscape being formed for America.Thanks, that is interesting.
I didn't think of "authoritarianism" outside of the gov't context, but why not. For example, I don't apply the label to say Josh Hawley or Chuck Schumer. I can't make a link between exercising a right (however stupidly) to challenge a certification or running a committee to consolidating all power into the Executive.I don't know if you have taken part in ongoing scholarly discussions on the objective definition of authoritarianism versus the colloquial uses, but within the sociopolitical sphere, "authoritarianism," is being viewed far more broadly due to long-reaching consequences of what seems like a solid, moralistic choice in the short-term.
I'll always argue that authoritarianism begins from the bottom up, and that's why psyops are so crucial to authoritarian control. Trying not to give credence to the argument we are seeing a new holocaust-esque happening, I do believe that what we are seeing is the first steps toward practiced and enforced authoritarianism. We have been on a drip-feed system of authoritarian control since 9/11, and I haven't seen us steering away from the path but actually leaning into it at every level of sociopolitics.
It's a worrying set of patterns and correlations, one I'm not sure we are going to be capable of steering away from. I see it no clearer than in the current vernacular of politicians, and the subsequent arguments at individual community levels where people call for authoritarian methods to be used while flying a flag of peace and unity. Left or right, it's all starting to look like two heads of the same coin.
Copy/pasted from my discussion with Credence:
Key features of the authoritarian left and right:
-Mandated ideological conformity on ideological issues (e.g., speech codes, identity politics).
-Top-down control over private sectors to ensure redistribution or regulation in line with equity goals/lack thereof.
-Suppression of dissent against left/right-wing social or cultural norms, often in the name of harm reduction or inclusion/exclusion.
-Strong regulatory or bureaucratic enforcement of policies promoting social equity or environmental justice/regulating said things.
-Government-imposed restrictions on behaviors or expressions seen as undermining traditional values/promoting opposition to these (e.g., on immigration, gender roles, religion).
-Centralized enforcement of nationalistic or moral norms, often through law enforcement or surveillance.
-Suppression of dissent against culturally conservative/liberal or nationalist/diversity narratives.
-Use of state power to protect entrenched hierarchies or economic elites under the banner of law and order/eat the rich.
Both left and right authoritarianism use the same methods, but the presentations of the methods and goals they carry out vary.College campuses around the world.
Outside of that, I could only point you toward conversations among scholars in the form of podcasts that typically focus on authoritarianism and its applications within specific fields of study/employment/government. Apologies for the lack of brevity, I wanted both sides to have a fair representation and to give you an ease of finding exactly what you'd like to hear.
I highly suggest giving both sides of the aisle a listen, they're all very valid:
Liberal-Leaning Podcasts
Pod Save America (Crooked Media)
Hosted by former Obama staffers, it regularly discusses threats to democracy and authoritarian tendencies, especially from the political right.
The Ezra Klein Show (The New York Times)
Offers deep dives into democratic norms, political systems, and rising authoritarian trends.
Democracy Now!
An independent news podcast with a focus on civil liberties, institutional power, and authoritarian practices both domestic and global.
Gaslit Nation
Hosted by Sarah Kendzior and Andrea Chalupa, it focuses on authoritarianism in the U.S. and around the world, often with historical context.
Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes
Hosted by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, the show explores systemic issues, including creeping authoritarianism.
Conservative-Leaning Podcasts
The Glenn Beck Program
Frequently discusses authoritarianism from the standpoint of government overreach, big tech, and perceived threats to constitutional freedoms.
The Ben Shapiro Show
Covers issues of free speech, government power, and authoritarian tendencies from a conservative/libertarian lens.
Verdict with Ted Cruz
Co-hosted by Senator Ted Cruz, this podcast often criticizes liberal institutions as exhibiting authoritarian control.
The Rubin Report
Hosted by Dave Rubin, it takes a classical liberal/libertarian approach to authoritarianism, often critiquing progressive policies.
The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
While not solely political, episodes often explore authoritarianism, collectivism, and ideological extremism from a critical standpoint.
Gaslit Nation
Theme: Trumpism, institutional collapse, creeping fascism
Episode: “The American Autocracy” (2024) – Analysis of authoritarian warning signs under Trump and ongoing threats to democratic norms.
Pod Save America
Theme: Erosion of democratic institutions, GOP radicalization
Episode: “How to Save Democracy” (2024) – Focuses on Republican strategies perceived as authoritarian, including voter suppression and judicial capture.
The Ezra Klein Show
Theme: Structural factors behind authoritarian drift, political polarization
Episode: “Why Democracies Collapse” (with Steven Levitsky, 2023) – Deep dive into the conditions enabling authoritarian movements in America.
Why Is This Happening? (Chris Hayes)
Theme: Surveillance state, militarized policing, Trump-era threats
Episode: “Democracy in Crisis” (2023) – Examines how democratic backsliding could continue under populist leadership.
Democracy Now!
Theme: Authoritarian policing, corporate-state collusion, media suppression
Episode: “Authoritarianism in America: The Surveillance State and Civil Liberties” (2024) – Report on post-9/11 security policies and their modern applications.
Conservative-Leaning Podcasts
The Glenn Beck Program
Theme: Federal overreach, loss of individual liberty, COVID mandates
Episode: “We Are Already Living Under Soft Authoritarianism” (2023) – Argues that bureaucratic control and media bias are signs of creeping authoritarianism.
The Ben Shapiro Show
Theme: Woke authoritarianism, cancel culture, administrative state
Episode: “Authoritarianism Comes from the Left” (2024) – Claims progressive politics silence dissent through institutional dominance.
Verdict with Ted Cruz
Theme: Government tyranny, weaponization of the DOJ, tech censorship
Episode: “The Authoritarian Playbook of the Left” (2024) – Discusses alleged politicization of federal agencies and loss of checks and balances.
The Rubin Report
Theme: Illiberal liberalism, social pressure to conform
Episode: “Woke Authoritarianism and the Death of Free Speech” (2023) – Interviews with thinkers on institutional censorship and ideological coercion.
Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
Theme: Totalitarian ideologies, collectivism, historical parallels
Episode: “The Psychology of Authoritarianism” (with Jonathan Haidt, 2024) – Philosophical and psychological perspective on how societies lean into authoritarian ideologies.Oh, I thought you meant another forum you and Credence were on.
I wish I had time for those things you mention, they sound very interesting. Maybe when I retire at 85, lol.Nah, it's rare you'll get functional, productive conversation on social forums outside of individual points being made before being drowned out by the riffraff.
Throw on a podcast when you're getting ready in the morning, on your lunch breaks, or during your daily wind down routine. It's the most efficient way to keep up with all sides in society if you can't make it to college lectures and political gatherings on campuses. Typically, the podcasts are hosted by the rising influential leaders among the political community and provide firsthand accounts of ongoing/novel studies and perspectives we don't otherwise get to here from the same people guiding legislation and public discourse.
Authoritarianism? Someone tell me what the hell this is?? These people won't answer questions and are just going to arrest those who ask
https://x.com/MarcoFoster_/status/1933231636885168206Yes, I ask the same. When does anyone have the right to interrupt a press conference? And become vocal and violent. And now he comes out and tries to walk back his demeanor. He was not there peacefully; he fought with agents.
He was there to get answers to questions she previously refused to answer... The man is a senator, he had every right to be there alongside the press that was there. Officers were all over him as soon as he walked in.. you don't throw someone to the floor and handcuff them for attempting to ask a question at a press conference.. my God.
He clearly and calmly identified himself when he walked into the room and was immediately detained, pushed into the hallway and onto the floor where he was handcuffed.
Ice Barbie is on Fox lying that he didn't identify himself....The video is already out in it's entirety and he clearly identifies himself...
https://x.com/MarcoFoster_/status/1933231636885168206
Ice Barbie didn't even call them off.... She knows damn well who he is. Ridiculous. AND she's on Fox News lying.... She very clearly stated that he didn't identify himself. We can all see from the video that he most certainly did. The woman is a liar.
Literally the moment agents begin forcibly removing him, he says, "I’m Senator Alex Padilla." They still forced him to the ground and handcuffed him anyway...How in the world would anyone first know how he was? And even when he ID'd himself, he did not show ID. These men are there to protect as bodyguards. This man was inappropriate. Sort of like many that are in the streets of LA. I mean, how was the Secret Service to know who he was? He came in late, and he became loud and out of turn. My God, and he is a Senator. Disgusting.
He said his name clearly. he is one of the senators from california, does anyone believe she hasn't at least heard his name?. I mean she's already proven herself to be pretty dimwitted ... I'll give you that. Padilla would have already passed through security to enter that building and press conference room... But going on Fox News and lying to that entire audience afterward is just incredibly shameful and disgusting.
He didn't become loud? The only thing he uttered was his name and that he was a senator.... After they started man handling himOh come on! He is the senator from California, the state she was bashing. How dumb can she be not to recognize him? DITTO with her security detail, they SHOULD have known as soon as he stopped into the room.
Oh yeah, as Willowarbor said, he immediately announced who he was. And as soon as they laid hands on him and started shoving him, he said it again telling them to take their hands off of him. The response should have been, "sorry sir", we shouldn't have done that.
You are right about one thing, Noem and her security details actions were absolutely disgusting!"You are right about one thing, Noem and her security details actions were absolutely disgusting!" ECO
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/356 … ost4372613
I never said what you’re claiming. What I did say was: “My God, and he is a Senator. Disgusting.” Don’t twist my words to suit your narrative. I don’t appreciate being misquoted, and I will be reporting this to the moderator. I strongly suggest you be more careful with your accusations going forward.
I guess you have never been to a news conference if you have to ask that, especially when the speaker makes a highly inflammatory and untruthful comment that Noem did. But to answer your question, everybody does it all the time at news conferences.
When does the Director of DHS not know who the senators are from California, the state she is lying about. There is no question her detail should have known, unless they are as incompetent as she is, who the VVIPs are in the federal government.Your smug tone says more about you than anything you’re trying to argue. Don’t pretend you hold some insider key to credibility because you’ve supposedly “been to a news conference.” That kind of elitist condescension is exactly why people are tuning out so-called experts. And no, shouting over someone at a press event because you deem their comment “untruthful” isn’t journalism. It’s performance art, and frankly, embarrassing.
As for DHS, your idea that every official should immediately recognize every senator, especially from a state like California where half of Washington is constantly trying to speak for it, is laughable. You're demanding perfection from others while offering nothing but arrogant, keyboard-warrior outrage.
And let’s be honest: it’s not just your argument that’s flimsy, it’s your character that grates. You speak with this thin veneer of authority, but it's really just self-importance wrapped in a bad attitude. You’re not interested in truth. You’re interested in baiting for a reason I can only imagine.
And here she is lying again...
https://x.com/HeartlandSignal/status/19 … 5170356438If Noem doesn't know who Alex Padilla is, and she's in California on "official business," then that is beyond incompetence; it's a reflection of the absolute failure, breakdown, and really just utter stupidity of the folks in this administration.
Let's be real, Noem knew exactly who Sen. Alex Padilla was and that's why she had him thrown out and arrested.... Padilla was in the building at a briefing So he had already cleared the security of a federal building.She raced to the Fox News cameras to tell their millions of viewers a lie... Tell me about disgusting.
Here is what we're dealing with... This would be laughable if it really weren't the sad reality that she's in a position of power
https://x.com/ErnestScribblr/status/1924835528173658492It seems to me that when one calls another "condescending" or other such insults, they are generally describing themselves.
Padilla is being interviewed on MSNBC and says that he had been standing in the back of the room listening to the conference... They took him down when he tried to ask a question... It appears that they only had a problem when he wanted to speak.
He didn't come "bursting into the room" either. He was there listening to her press conference... He was actually being escorted through the building.
We are really on the brink of losing this democracy. Restraining an elected member of the Senate from doing his job... And republicans? Mute, feckless, spinelessAre you in agreement then that we have passed over into an actual dictatorship with democracy only hanging on by the thin thread of the Courts?
It's getting worse by the day. We are certainly on the brink of autocracy. We are completely at the mercy of the courts.
And as far as Noem goes, she should have been replaced after her habeas corpus debacle.
OK, here is a blow-by-blow of what actually happened—based on video footage and eyewitness accounts, not the misleading narrative pushed by Noem and DHS.
BTW, "~" means approximately.
~12:00 PM – Secretary Kristi Noem begins her press conference.
~12:05 PM – Senator Alex Padilla quietly enters the briefing room and stands near the back.
Shortly after, Noem delivers a political broadside, smearing California and Los Angeles. She declares:
“We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into this city.”
In response to this inflammatory rhetoric, Senator Padilla—California’s elected representative—clearly announces for all in the room to hear, including Noem and her security detail:
“I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the Secretary.”
(The following sequence unfolds in under 20 seconds.)
Within seconds, members of the security detail—who by this point should have known exactly who he was—move toward Padilla and begin physically pushing him. At one point, Padilla takes a step or two forward—not as an act of aggression, but as a natural reaction to the shove and in an effort to finish asking his question. This movement was later deliberately mischaracterized by Noem and DHS as a “lunge,” a claim blatantly contradicted by the video evidence.
As agents put their hands on him, Padilla again states his identity and raises his hands in a clear signal of non-aggression, repeating loudly:
“Hands off! Hands off!”
Despite these repeated verbal and physical signals of peaceful intent—and his clear assertion of protected speech and legal status as a sitting U.S. Senator—he is shoved out of the room, forced to his knees, and ultimately pushed to the ground before being handcuffed.
My conclusion from this FACTUAL depiction of what took place, I draw the following conclusions:
1. Noem clearly started it with her inflammatory lies.
2. Noem obviously left California's Senator no choice but to defend his state.
3. The security detail acted improperly by putting hands on a person they knew a) to pose no threat and b) was a sitting Senator of the United States.
4. They should have let him ask his questions.
5. They acted totally inappropriately by manhandling him to the ground and cuffing him.
Noem should resign or be impeached. Her security detail should be fired.This is a prime example why Trump stinks and so do his apparatchiks. What did the senator do except to call out Noel’s lies, is he the only one not allowed to speak.
Tyranny is peeking….Ooh, that is an appropriate word - "apparatchiks"
The Authoritarian Trump illegally federalized the California National Guard, so says a rational federal judge.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/12/politics … nia-breyerTrump's authoritarianism is infecting lower levels now.
'We will kill you': Florida sheriff issues stern warning to protesters
This guy needs to be locked up in his own jail or an institution for the insane.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/us/video … you-digvidThese people are very emboldened. I mean it's a guaranteed pardon. Look at the governor's new decree there...DeSantis says that Florida drivers can hit protesters if they fear for their lives...
If you're allowed to drive a car through a crowd, then surely you're allowed to drive a car through people posing as ice but don't show any ID, are wearing masks, and don't wear uniforms with the names of their agency, or are in plain clothes. Out of fear right?? Slippery slope isn't it.The Legal Standard: “Objectively Reasonable Belief”
Under Florida Statute §776.05, a law enforcement officer may use deadly force if they reasonably believe it’s necessary to:
Prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or others, or
Apprehend a felon who poses a deadly threat.
Brick-Thowing Scenario
A brick is considered a deadly weapon because it can cause serious injury or death. So, if someone throws a brick at an officer, the officer is legally allowed to respond with deadly force if:
The brick is actually thrown or about to be thrown at the officer, and
The officer has a reasonable belief that the brick poses a lethal threat—such as aiming for the head at close range.
Protesters in Florida are expected to follow the laws. The laws are clear.
So, if anyone tosses a projectile at a law officer, they can use lethal force. Period. Guess the protesters should stick to states where they can get away with throwing bricks.
I support peaceful protests --- I support laws--- I support using any force against someone who would become violent and attempt to hurt a law officer. Anyone who is being peaceful is not breaking any laws and should have no fear of protesting. Anyone breaking the law needs to be treated as the law permits.
Appeals court temporarily allows Trump to keep National Guard in LA
2 hours ago
"An appeals court has temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that directed the Trump administration to return control of California's National Guard troops back to the state.
The appeals court's decision came hours after a federal judge said Trump's deployment of the troops to Los Angeles to quell immigration raids was illegal.
Trump said he was sending the troops - who are typically under the governor's authority - to stop LA from "burning down" in protests against his immigration crackdown.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and other local officials rejected the move, however, and said it was an unnecessary provocation. The appeals court said it would hold a hearing on Tuesday.
At an earlier federal court hearing, Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California's request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state's National Guard.
"He did not," the judge wrote in his decision. "His actions were illegal... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith."
But the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it. The administration did so almost immediately after the order was issued.
Newsom posted on social media on Thursday afternoon that "the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets".
The Trump administration has said it took over California's National Guard to restore order and to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they swept up people in Los Angeles who were believed to be in the country illegally.
Despite Newsom's objections, Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to help quell the unrest. Some of the Guard troops are now authorised to detain people until police can arrest them.
A president last deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent more than 50 years ago - during the civil rights era. It is more common for a governor to activate troops to deal with natural disasters and other emergencies, and then ask for federal assistance.
Before a packed courtroom on Thursday, a justice department attorney told Judge Breyer that Newsom did not need to be consulted when Trump issued his order.
"Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it," Attorney Brett Shumate said. "There is one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces."
"No," Judge Breyer, the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, responded.
"The president isn't the commander -in-chief of the National Guard," he said but added there were times and situations where the president could become the head of the troops.
Breyer, who had donned a light blue bowtie, invoked the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, holding up a booklet copy of the document at one point.
"We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority," he said. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George."
Before the judge's ruling, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth repeatedly refused to say if he would comply with Judge Breyer's order.
"What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country," Hegseth said, speaking at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday.
Hegseth said he would comply with a Supreme Court ruling.
The appeals court decision on late Thursday allows the National Guard troops to remain in Los Angeles as the case makes it way through the courts.
The Trump administration used a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when a "rebellion" is happening.
But California said in its lawsuit that the protests that have spanned nearly a week in LA - and included more than 300 arrests and the shutting down of a major freeway - did not rise to that level.
"At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," the lawsuit read."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd62d8jp046o
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … litary-la/
Related Discussions
- 20
Why are Men Leaving the Democrat Party?
by Readmikenow 26 hours ago
Democrats set out to study young menA widely mocked project to get under the hood about why Democrats are losing young men has sobering results.The Democrats trying to understand young American men know people are roasting their plan.All that mocking just proves their point, they said: Democrats...
- 23
Silence Is Complicity. This Is a Moral Crisis.
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
I am absolutely furious. Two young adults were gunned down yesterday at a Jewish museum right here in the United States, not some foreign warzone, not a flashpoint overseas, but in our own backyard. This wasn't just a shooting. This was an act of targeted hatred, and it speaks to a dangerous,...
- 13
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 3 years ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
- 21
Is USAID's 'Soft Power' Benefit Worth The Money Spent?
by ga anderson 3 months ago
A previous comment about 'the value of an under-informed opinion' is appropriate here."Soft Power" is the buzzword for the foreign relations benefits of USAID. A Michael Smercornish segment spoke to that question. He made a lot of sense with specific examples. The 'Sesame Street video for...
- 35
Why do people bother paying attention to politics?
by Sam Wickstrom 8 years ago
I've noticed that every politician lies, with very few exceptions. Why do we continue to legitimize the bullshit by voting and paying attention to it for years at a time? Basically, why don't we just solve issues through our own choices, rather than looking to some bribed goof for leadership
- 249
President Trump urges Governors to open public school before summer?
by Credence2 5 years ago
Why would he suggest this?While younger people are generally more resilient to the ill effects of the virus, they are not completely safe nor immune.How do you get kids to maintain 6 feet distance from one another?People seem to forget that asymtomatic children can still pass the virus to...