Another Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

The other side of fascism is Bolshevism (authoritarian socialism). Calling out Trump (who shows a strong desire for authoritarianism) and not calling out the far left who demonstrate the same desire to control beliefs and speech is unbalanced.

---

Trump is the actual President. It's entirely reasonable to call him out more often than some fringe elements on the left.

---

So you won't call out the wave of authoritarianism demonstrated by those in power on the left (the Squad) until they have even more power? Most of Never Trumpers like me called out his authoritarian tendencies even when he was running. Where is your outrage for those on the left? Is the objection a matter of principle or a matter of political party?

---

Explain to me how The Squad is authoritarian.

---

Controlling speech and behavior. Calling for economic ruin of anyone who does not obey their mandate on how we should behave. Trying to destroy the reputation (including those in her own party) if they happen to disagree. Inciting a mob of their blind followers to harass and bully people into marching to their idea of right beliefs.

---

WEAK LOSER POST. You wingnuts need better propaganda. The current batch expired.

---

Yes, you are clearly a winner in life.

---

Com'n man, use some tremendous, Trumpian genius language. Show everyone you're the man!

---

How old of a fart are you? You're the man?! Who says that anymore?

Just shut up. You are clearly an old idiot who was never cool and never even liberal but who has latched on to this board and this alleged progressive beliefs to seek approval you couldn't get anywhere else.

How else can you use terms like "r'tard" or use gender or sexual orientation as an insult in your other posts and really be "progressive". Try a better act.

And you really are too old to be living with your poor mom.

calbear93 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

The other side of fascism is Bolshevism (authoritarian socialism). Calling out Trump (who shows a strong desire for authoritarianism) and not calling out the far left who demonstrate the same desire to control beliefs and speech is unbalanced.

---

Trump is the actual President. It's entirely reasonable to call him out more often than some fringe elements on the left.

---

So you won't call out the wave of authoritarianism demonstrated by those in power on the left (the Squad) until they have even more power? Most of Never Trumpers like me called out his authoritarian tendencies even when he was running. Where is your outrage for those on the left? Is the objection a matter of principle or a matter of political party?

---

Explain to me how The Squad is authoritarian.

---

Controlling speech and behavior. Calling for economic ruin of anyone who does not obey their mandate on how we should behave. Trying to destroy the reputation (including those in her own party) if they happen to disagree. Inciting a mob of their blind followers to harass and bully people into marching to their idea of right beliefs.

---

WEAK LOSER POST. You wingnuts need better propaganda. The current batch expired.

---

Yes, you are clearly a winner in life.

---

Com'n man, use some tremendous, Trumpian genius language. Show everyone you're the man!

---

How old of a fart are you? You're the man?! Who says that anymore?

Just shut up. You are clearly an old idiot who was never cool and never even liberal but who has latched on to this board and this alleged progressive beliefs to seek approval you couldn't get anywhere else.

How else can you use terms like "r'tard" or use gender or sexual orientation as an insult in your other posts and really be "progressive". Try a better act.

And you really are too old to be living with your poor mom.

---

OMG Fallopian93...love your act bro! How freakin' manly to tell me to shut up! You're like totally manly!!! Yeah, Rico Sauve! You must be a beotch magnet! Dude, you're so manly...you're like as manly as Trump! Do have a lardass, morbidly obese and do you grab female body parts too...like the fallopian tube?

Another Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

The other side of fascism is Bolshevism (authoritarian socialism). Calling out Trump (who shows a strong desire for authoritarianism) and not calling out the far left who demonstrate the same desire to control beliefs and speech is unbalanced.

---

Trump is the actual President. It's entirely reasonable to call him out more often than some fringe elements on the left.

---

So you won't call out the wave of authoritarianism demonstrated by those in power on the left (the Squad) until they have even more power? Most of Never Trumpers like me called out his authoritarian tendencies even when he was running. Where is your outrage for those on the left? Is the objection a matter of principle or a matter of political party?

---

Explain to me how The Squad is authoritarian.

---

Controlling speech and behavior. Calling for economic ruin of anyone who does not obey their mandate on how we should behave. Trying to destroy the reputation (including those in her own party) if they happen to disagree. Inciting a mob of their blind followers to harass and bully people into marching to their idea of right beliefs.

---

WEAK LOSER POST. You wingnuts need better propaganda. The current batch expired.

---

Yes, you are clearly a winner in life.

---

Com'n man, use some tremendous, Trumpian genius language. Show everyone you're the man!

---

How old of a fart are you? You're the man?! Who says that anymore?

Just shut up. You are clearly an old idiot who was never cool and never even liberal but who has latched on to this board and this alleged progressive beliefs to seek approval you couldn't get anywhere else.

How else can you use terms like "r'tard" or use gender or sexual orientation as an insult in your other posts and really be "progressive". Try a better act.

And you really are too old to be living with your poor mom.

---

OMG Fallopian93...love your act bro! How freakin' manly to tell me to shut up! You're like totally manly!!! Yeah, Rico Sauve! You must be a beotch magnet! Dude, you're so manly...you're like as manly as Trump! Do have a lardass, morbidly obese and do you grab female body parts too...like the fallopian tube?

---

Which of you truly progressive folks want to claim him as your own? Is he a true progressive or a far right nut trying to make progressive look crazy?

Star if you agree: Another Bear is not crazy and is a true representative of a Democrat.

Star if you agree: Another Bear is not a Democrat but an alt-right poster who is pretending to be a Democrat to make the left look crazy.

calbear93 said:

---

Which of you truly progressive folks want to claim him as your own? Is he a true progressive or a far right nut trying to make progressive look crazy?

---

I think he/she has probably reached the place of realizing that being logical and rational does not seem to be responded to in kind, and so he/she has stopped trying and now just treats "you" with the same lack of respect and exaggerated voice with which the 5-6 Trump defenders have used for the last few years.

I wish he would change his tone because he/she does have valuable things to say and add, but the swearing and hyperbole discredits them--but I also understand how they got to this point. I am willing to bet they would de-escalate if the Trump contingency backed off their childish cartoon propagandized speaking points and their simplistic word salad rants.

calbear93 said:

---

Which of you truly progressive folks want to claim him as your own? Is he a true progressive or a far right nut trying to make progressive look crazy?

---

I doubt he has anyone in the real world, including blood relations, that wants to claim him. I just classify him with the dip****s and move on.

blungld said:

---

How dare that uppity female latino tell you what to do! Way more important than kids in cages, our elections being rigged, the deregulation of corporations and the effect on climate and income inequality, and our President acting as puppet to Putin.

---

Now now, let's be fair. He's not saying it's MORE important, he's saying it's EQUALLY important.

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

How dare that uppity female latino tell you what to do! Way more important than kids in cages, our elections being rigged, the deregulation of corporations and the effect on climate and income inequality, and our President acting as puppet to Putin.

---

Now now, let's be fair. He's not saying it's MORE important, he's saying it's EQUALLY important.

---

Oh, you're right. My bad. He is actually making a good point then.

So where do 12000 ISIS fighters who are religious zealots go once their Kurdish guards have decided that they need to reinforce Kurdish positions that are being attacked by Russians and the Turks? Over 2500 of those ISIS fighters are foreign born meaning they could be from Western Europe and the U.S.. There are an additional 100,000 family members in camps that were being guarded by the Kurds. Essentially because of the Idiot in Chief's action these individuals are into the wind and there is a chance that they will show up on the doorsteps of Europe and the U.S.. This is the result of an ill-advised foreign policy based on someones gut.

BearNIt said:

---

Kurdish areas are being shelled and bombed as we speak. The Kurds are seeking protection at U.S. military bases that once had U.S. personnel. This freakin Idiot in Chief is so freaking out of his mind that he actually started discussing the Kurds not fighting with the U.S. at Normandy. The day that this big pile of steaming **** of a decision became known just happened to be Putin's birthday.

---

The only upshot is that the President's unilateral decision to allow the Kurds to be attacked, might actually break off a chunk of Republican support. No one has supported the decision anywhere, and as the reports of the violence spread (and probably get worse) it will put him under more scrutiny. Trump's support won't crater, it will simply go from that immovable 40% to 35%, but that 5% difference will be huge when the elections come. The only question is did this happen too soon to where the media and public no longer think about it in 13 months.

This may also give cover to the Republican lawmakers that want to get out from Trump's influence but don't want to 'be against' him in the impeachment - Abuse of Power scandal. They can now point to the Turkey - Syria decision as the reason to break from him, and try to sell that to their constituents rather than saying 'I agree he is a corrupt authoritarian that is destroying our institutions for personal gain'.

calbear93 said:

---

Who are you lecturing to?

---

Your deaf ears apparently.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Who are you lecturing to?

---

Your deaf ears apparently.

---

Why are you lecturing to me? What about my prior posts indicate that I am in favor of either Trump or any form of authoritarianism?

What I find offensive are those who just blindly engage in didactic moral grandstanding.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I think you are special too. Bless your heart.

---

Just remember that in these dark times, and what will be surely labeled as a historic low point, a time where we lost our ways as a country and abandoned our values and decency, that you defended it in varying degrees and then took the time to make cute smug insults to those people who were trying to stop it. But you are the great Christian on these boards so caring and loving and dedicated protector of the meek, right?

---

Who are the meek? The self-righteous, hypocritical people who focus on words without action? Those who take pride in lecturing to others while their actions or hearts are not any purer? I don't agree with your viewpoint on who is meek. Just because I roll my eyes at folks thinking that vilifying the conservatives on a leftish board is somehow some great deed does not mean that I am supportive of Trump. I can be against Trump and authoritarianism and also be against hypocrisy and empty, back-patting behavior. My disgust at both are not the most Christian behavior, but like all Christians, I too am flawed.

And let me also clarify another misunderstanding about Christianity.

The whole point is that we are all flawed and that we cannot save ourselves. We do not earn favor or salvation through good works. We are saved by the free grace of a loving God. Those living in the free grace are inspired to be loving to others and lovingly attempt to obey our God because we were loved when we were undeserving, but our action is not the basis for our relationship with God.

Yet, people who profess to lecturing about what is wrong about Christians or Christianity mistake the faith as some behavior matter.

You seem like a very intelligent person. Shouldn't you at least understand the basics of what you would mock?

calbear93 said:

---

I am done with you.

---

Me too. I am really upset by all that is happening and am angry at any appearance of defending it or normalizing it. I am being forced as a citizen of this country to tacitly participate in what I see as pure evil. The future of democratic norms, prosperity for the middle class, the environment, and global stability all seem at great risk. I don't want to live in a kleptocratic Oligarchy and we are getting real close. Quiet civil discourse is challenging when the stakes are this high and when you contemplate the society you are leaving for your kids. I teach my children to fair and truthful and honorable while the world around them slips to "greed is good," "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying," and the highest offices of our land being for sale with total disregard to the national interest and her citizens--and then salting that just for good measure with lies and media propaganda that says "no, we're not dirty and screwing you over, don't trust your eyes/ears, just give me your total rage-fueled loyalty."

I don't disagree with everything you say, but your priorities and the things that seem to most grab your attention and the way you frame them seem out of whack to me and symptomatic of so much religious and conservative hypocrisy. There is no talking through that difference, and the steadfast beliefs that you have probably built upon for many many years that filter reality in a way that I can probably never speak to in any convincing way. I don't worship symbols or power, I treasure kindness and empathy.

calbear93 said:

---

Star if you agree: Another Bear is not a Democrat but an alt-right poster who is pretending to be a Democrat to make the left look crazy.

---

Dude, put down the "deep state" crack pipe. This is Pizza-gate combined with full treason you dimwit...just like your man Trump! Now make a public statement demanding Ukraine and China investigate your own corruption! Don't lie about it comrade...we have pee tape!

Yes, you're being trolled. Hilarious how y'all can't take it. Typical wingnut crybaby reaction... exactly like Trump reaction to the latest Fox News Poll that straight up says a majority support impeachment and removal. Y'all just WEAK and LOSERY.

So...lets begin with today's trolling, shall we?

TRUMP IS GETTING IMPEACHED...DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Defend your hero!

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Just because I also criticized the Squad, I am now racist who is offended that some "uppity female latino" tells me what to do?

---

For me, it's not just because you criticized the Squad. It's that you called them authoritarian without a good argument for why they are. Just speaking loudly about their politics and also having online fans who speak loudly is not good support for that claim. You may as well say that any popular political movement is authoritarian.

---

Because you are generally a reasonable person, I will take this as a reasonable request.

This is the definition of authoritarianism:

"Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom"

Based on that definition, do you really not see how a bigger government dictating what we do under the New Green Deal (e.g., getting all power from renewal energy; the government eliminating private insurance; guranteeing jobs for everyone) is government regulating obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom? It is hard for me to understand how the far left progressive movement with bigger government restricting personal freedom is not authoritarian. We can argue on whether they are seeking a greater good, but the reality is that all authoritarians are alleging greater good as an excuse for eliminating more personal freedom.

Of course there are degrees, but restricting speech, restricting alternative medical coverage, restricting practice of religion in strict obedience to the government are definitely authoritarian. Sure, there are degrees, but how could you argue that bigger government with bigger entanglements and less options are not authoritarian?

I mean either we are misaligned on the definition of authoritarianism (tell me which dictionary you are using) or you think some moral superiority allows for authoritarian form of government.

sycasey said:

---

To me this does define Trump pretty well. He often talks about wanting to ignore constitutional requirements, the legislature, the judiciary, etc. The Squad do make emotional appeals, but otherwise? The Green New Deal isn't something AOC is trying to pass by fiat, it's something she wants to gain support for in Congress and get passed that way. They encourage political mobilization against the current power regime. That is the opposite of authoritarian.

---

When smart people make a point, it sounds smart.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Just because I also criticized the Squad, I am now racist who is offended that some "uppity female latino" tells me what to do?

---

For me, it's not just because you criticized the Squad. It's that you called them authoritarian without a good argument for why they are. Just speaking loudly about their politics and also having online fans who speak loudly is not good support for that claim. You may as well say that any popular political movement is authoritarian.

---

Because you are generally a reasonable person, I will take this as a reasonable request.

This is the definition of authoritarianism:

"Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom"

Based on that definition, do you really not see how a bigger government dictating what we do under the New Green Deal (e.g., getting all power from renewal energy; the government eliminating private insurance; guranteeing jobs for everyone) is government regulating obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom? It is hard for me to understand how the far left progressive movement with bigger government restricting personal freedom is not authoritarian. We can argue on whether they are seeking a greater good, but the reality is that all authoritarians are alleging greater good as an excuse for eliminating more personal freedom.

Of course there are degrees, but restricting speech, restricting alternative medical coverage, restricting practice of religion in strict obedience to the government are definitely authoritarian. Sure, there are degrees, but how could you argue that bigger government with bigger entanglements and less options are not authoritarian?

I mean either we are misaligned on the definition of authoritarianism (tell me which dictionary you are using) or you think some moral superiority allows for authoritarian form of government.

---

Your economic arguments are missing the point, imo. Liberal economic policies are a response to market power which is usually consolidated and used not necessarily to the benefit of the public at large. In that circumstance, liberal economic policy is actually using democratic government to liberate individuals from the constraints of consolidated market power held outside government.

sycasey said:

---

This is different from the argument you made before, but okay, let's roll with it.

calbear93 said:

---

Based on that definition, do you really not see how a bigger government dictating what we do under the New Green Deal (e.g., getting all power from renewal energy; the government eliminating private insurance; guranteeing jobs for everyone) is not government regulating obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom? It is hard for me to understand how the far left progressive movement with bigger government restricting personal freedom is not authoritarian. We can argue on whether they are seeking a greater good, but the reality is that all authoritarians are alleging greater good as an excuse for eliminating more personal freedom.

Of course there are degrees, but restricting speech, restricting alternative medical coverage, restricting practice of religion in strict obedience to the government are definitely authoritarian. Sure, there are degrees, but how could you argue that bigger government with bigger entanglements and less options are not authoritarian?

I mean either we are misaligned on the definition of authoritarianism (tell me which dictionary you are using) or you think some moral superiority allows for authoritarian form of government.

---

Is any government restriction authoritarian? What about when the government forced us to wear seat belts, was that authoritarian? When they say you can't own a bazooka, is that authoritarian? Are increased taxes authoritarian?

You may as well say that all liberal political thought is authoritarian, that all laws enacted for public safety are authoritarian. I say there needs to be more than that to claim a politician is authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Quote:

---

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Under an authoritarian regime, individual freedoms are subordinate to the state, and there is no constitutional accountability. Authoritarian regimes can be autocratic, with power concentrated in one person, or can be a committee, with power shared among officials and government institutions.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#cite_note-gap-1][1][/url] The political scientist Juan Linz defined authoritarianism in an influential 1964 work as possessing four qualities:[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#cite_note-2][2][/url]
[ol]

Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties, and interest groups;

Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion, and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment, and insurgency";

Minimal political mobilization and suppression of anti-regime activities;

Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#cite_note-3][3][/url]

[/ol]

---

To me this does define Trump pretty well. He often talks about wanting to ignore constitutional requirements, the legislature, the judiciary, etc. The Squad do make emotional appeals, but otherwise? The Green New Deal isn't something AOC is trying to pass by fiat, it's something she wants to gain support for in Congress and get passed that way. They encourage political mobilization against the current power regime. That is the opposite of authoritarian.

---

Yes, the more government intrudes on our personal freedom and dictate obedience, the more authoritarian it is. Bigger government means greater control by authority.

Now some are more acceptable than other. On the other side of fascism / Bolsheviks (authoritarian government) are anarchy / liberalism (complete freedom from authority). There are degrees. Since I don't believe in no government, I do believe in some form of authority. However, I am closer to liberalism than I am to fascism or bolsheviks because I inherently resist bigger government.

Now, as to your four points identified by Juan Linz and summarized in wikipedia, I would have to argue that those are not really the facts. Nazi German had great amount of political mobilization (often vilifying the opposing party and finding scapegoats) and had clearly defined executive power.

I never said Trump did not tend toward authoritarianism. He believes that the executive branch can exercise control over others and remove freedom. Just because he tends to be authoritarian does not mean that the left cannot also be authoritarian.

Let me end it here. I hate the view of government as the solution for our problems, with the government having to tell us and having to control our behavior because we just cannot be trusted with freedom. Yes, there are costs and negatives to freedom, but I believe it is worth it, and I don't agree that the government controling more and more aspect of our lives is ultimately a good thing. Hence, I am more a libertarian than fascist or bolshelviks. Anarchy is just weird.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Just because I also criticized the Squad, I am now racist who is offended that some "uppity female latino" tells me what to do?

---

For me, it's not just because you criticized the Squad. It's that you called them authoritarian without a good argument for why they are. Just speaking loudly about their politics and also having online fans who speak loudly is not good support for that claim. You may as well say that any popular political movement is authoritarian.

---

Because you are generally a reasonable person, I will take this as a reasonable request.

This is the definition of authoritarianism:

"Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom"

Based on that definition, do you really not see how a bigger government dictating what we do under the New Green Deal (e.g., getting all power from renewal energy; the government eliminating private insurance; guranteeing jobs for everyone) is government regulating obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom? It is hard for me to understand how the far left progressive movement with bigger government restricting personal freedom is not authoritarian. We can argue on whether they are seeking a greater good, but the reality is that all authoritarians are alleging greater good as an excuse for eliminating more personal freedom.

Of course there are degrees, but restricting speech, restricting alternative medical coverage, restricting practice of religion in strict obedience to the government are definitely authoritarian. Sure, there are degrees, but how could you argue that bigger government with bigger entanglements and less options are not authoritarian?

I mean either we are misaligned on the definition of authoritarianism (tell me which dictionary you are using) or you think some moral superiority allows for authoritarian form of government.

---

Your economic arguments are missing the point, imo. Liberal economic policies are a response to market power which is usually consolidated and used not necessarily to the benefit of the public at large. In that circumstance, liberal economic policy is actually using democratic government to liberate individuals from the constraints of consolidated market power held outside government.

---

We are talking about form of government and not economic philosophy.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Just because I also criticized the Squad, I am now racist who is offended that some "uppity female latino" tells me what to do?

---

For me, it's not just because you criticized the Squad. It's that you called them authoritarian without a good argument for why they are. Just speaking loudly about their politics and also having online fans who speak loudly is not good support for that claim. You may as well say that any popular political movement is authoritarian.

---

Because you are generally a reasonable person, I will take this as a reasonable request.

This is the definition of authoritarianism:

"Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom"

Based on that definition, do you really not see how a bigger government dictating what we do under the New Green Deal (e.g., getting all power from renewal energy; the government eliminating private insurance; guranteeing jobs for everyone) is government regulating obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom? It is hard for me to understand how the far left progressive movement with bigger government restricting personal freedom is not authoritarian. We can argue on whether they are seeking a greater good, but the reality is that all authoritarians are alleging greater good as an excuse for eliminating more personal freedom.

Of course there are degrees, but restricting speech, restricting alternative medical coverage, restricting practice of religion in strict obedience to the government are definitely authoritarian. Sure, there are degrees, but how could you argue that bigger government with bigger entanglements and less options are not authoritarian?

I mean either we are misaligned on the definition of authoritarianism (tell me which dictionary you are using) or you think some moral superiority allows for authoritarian form of government.

---

Your economic arguments are missing the point, imo. Liberal economic policies are a response to market power which is usually consolidated and used not necessarily to the benefit of the public at large. In that circumstance, liberal economic policy is actually using democratic government to liberate individuals from the constraints of consolidated market power held outside government.

---

We are talking about form of government and not economic philosophy.

---

Your examples of bigger government were loaded with economic arguments

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, the more government intrudes on our personal freedom and dictate obedience, the more authoritarian it is. Bigger government means greater control by authority.

---

I would argue that if said control came from a democratic vote in a democratically-elected legislative body, that is NOT authoritarian. That's just representative democracy. This is what AOC and the Squad are trying to accomplish, so they are not authoritarian.

calbear93 said:

---

Now, as to your four points identified by Juan Linz and summarized in wikipedia, I would have to argue that those are not really the facts. Nazi German had great amount of political mobilization (often vilifying the opposing party and finding scapegoats) and had clearly defined executive power.

---

I'm pretty sure Linz's definition means there is little mobilization AGAINST the ruling party. The ruling party itself can have plenty of mobilization against its political enemies. That would be authoritarian.

AOC and the Squad are not part of the ruling party. Their mobilization is against the current power regime (Trump and the Republicans). It is not authoritarian.

calbear93 said:

---

Let me end it here. I hate the view of government as the solution for our problems, with the government having to tell us and control of behavior because we just cannot be trusted with freedom. Yes, there are costs and negatives to freedom, but I believe it is worth it, and I don't agree that the government control more and more aspect of our lives is ultimately a good thing. Hence, I am more a libertarian than fascist or bolshelviks. Anarchy is just weird.

---

That's fine. I may not always agree, but arguing a libertarian perspective is perfectly reasonable.

I do not think it's reasonable to characterize the members of The Squad as authoritarian. Very little of their behavior fits what I would see as the classic definition of such, unless you want to stretch it reeeeeeeally far and wind up defining virtually all liberal/progressive politics and popular political movements as authoritarian. AOC and her crew are not authoritarians, they're just left-wing liberals. Maybe they're louder and more forceful with language than what you're used to, but fundamentally their actions don't fit the bill of authoritarianism. Authoritarians don't bother trying to build coalitions in Congress.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, the more government intrudes on our personal freedom and dictate obedience, the more authoritarian it is. Bigger government means greater control by authority.

---

I would argue that if said control came from a democratic vote in a democratically-elected legislative body, that is NOT authoritarian. That's just representative democracy. This is what AOC and the Squad are trying to accomplish, so they are not authoritarian.

calbear93 said:

---

Now, as to your four points identified by Juan Linz and summarized in wikipedia, I would have to argue that those are not really the facts. Nazi German had great amount of political mobilization (often vilifying the opposing party and finding scapegoats) and had clearly defined executive power.

---

I'm pretty sure Linz's definition means there is little mobilization AGAINST the ruling party. The ruling party itself can have plenty of mobilization against its political enemies. That would be authoritarian.

AOC and the Squad are not part of the ruling party. Their mobilization is against the current power regime (Trump and the Republicans). It is not authoritarian.

calbear93 said:

---

Let me end it here. I hate the view of government as the solution for our problems, with the government having to tell us and control of behavior because we just cannot be trusted with freedom. Yes, there are costs and negatives to freedom, but I believe it is worth it, and I don't agree that the government control more and more aspect of our lives is ultimately a good thing. Hence, I am more a libertarian than fascist or bolshelviks. Anarchy is just weird.

---

That's fine. I may not always agree, but arguing a libertarian perspective is perfectly reasonable.

I do not think it's reasonable to characterize the members of The Squad as authoritarian. Very little of their behavior fits what I would see as the classic definition of such, unless you want to stretch it reeeeeeeally far and wind up defining virtually all liberal/progressive politics and popular political movements as authoritarian. AOC and her crew are not authoritarians, they're just left-wing liberals. Maybe they're louder and more forceful with language than what you're used to, but fundamentally their actions don't fit the bill of authoritarianism. Authoritarians don't bother trying to build coalitions in Congress.

---

I am not sure I understand your standard, because by those standards, even Trump is not authoritarian.

Your first point: "I would argue that if said control came from a democratic vote in a democratically-elected legislative body, that is NOT authoritarian." Trump's power came from a democratic vote. So did Hitlers. That cannot be the standard, unless you are stating that only the legislative branch cannot be authoritarian.

Your second point: "I'm pretty sure Linz's definition means there is little mobilization AGAINST the ruling party. The ruling party itself can have plenty of mobilization against its political enemies. That would be authoritarian." Clearly there is huge mobilization against Trump. Does that mean he is not authoritarian. I think he is, even though there is clear mobilization, including attempts to impeach.

Your third point: "AOC and the Squad are not part of the ruling party. Their mobilization is against the current power regime (Trump and the Republicans). It is not authoritarian." Why are the Democrats not part of the ruling party? They have the House. Is Congress not an equal branch of the government?

Your final point: "Authoritarians don't bother trying to build coalitions in Congress." They are not building a coalition. They are bullying their way with their twitter followers. That was the whole point Pelosi was making. They were using their twitter followers to bully and shame people into adopting their policy when they only had, at the end of the day, four votes. How is that coalition building? Four loud voices bullying and shaming through allegations of racism (really, we are calling Pelosi racist?).

I think Trump is exhibiting authoritarianism by using his power at the cost of freedom. But based on your standards, he is not. The standards have to be wrong and we should just stick with the definition instead of some made-up elements.

Well, here's my take on Trump. To me he seems like a guy with authoritarian leanings and who makes authoritarian noises but has thus far been unsuccessful at actually turning himself into an authoritarian leader. Some of that is the system constraining him and some of that is his own incompetence or laziness.

I don't see those kinds of leanings at all in The Squad. I don't think you can reasonably say they are responsible for the behavior of all their Twitter followers. (And yes, same with Trump. I don't think he is an authoritarian because of his Twitter followers being jerks.)