Tar baby.
Printable View
Well, he's right to the extent that Ezra Klein is a liberal and Vox is a progressive blog.
Maybe it's important to note, maybe it's not.
The article was interesting, but I would wholeheartedly challenge the author's assertion that Feldman's 'parenting goals' line of questions is the definitive measure of authoritarianism. To me, it's actually the perfect example of a political scientist trying to play a psychologist and airmailing it.
There is a strong distinguishing factor between political science's view of authoritarianism and psychology's view of authoritarianism as well as a great deal lot of overlap and disagreement between the two schools; for example, do citizens gravitate toward authoritarian ideals based on ideology or personality - and if so - how do we define that ideology and that personality?
A psychologist, Bob Altemeyer, conducted a popular study on Right Wing Authoritarianism in the mid-90s: http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffle...ersonality.pdf (sorry, it's the only digital copy I could find). His questions, from my perspective, and especially in light of my perception of this past election, are much more in-tune with today's political climate and how we should go about defining modern authoritarianism.
Altemeyer references Erich Fromm in his introduction. Fromm believed that Germans who supported Nazism represented both submissive AND dominant personality types. The author of the Vox piece dismisses Fromm and what would later become known as the "Berkeley" research on authoritarianism as "junk science" ... that's asinine. Anyways, Altemeyer's findings ultimately circle around the idea of "Social Domination" ... ie. winning (how ironic) ... being the 'new' Authoritarianism (and I'm overly simplifying).
Trump won a campaign predicated ENTIRELY on winning. He was overtly competitive and arrogantly ambitious. What grew his appeal was being an underdog from the moment he lurched out of the gate and proving his detractors and enemies wrong literally every step of the way. Sure, he sprinkled some policy on here and there for show, but let's not kid ourselves: most people did not vote for Trump because he promised to build the wall or because he said he would abolish TPP. They voted for him because he promised greatness. And is that not one of the fundamental principles that Americans are constantly encouraged to strive for essentially from birth?
I think to categorize Trump as an authoritarian in the traditional sense is a bit flawed because it carries these historically nefarious undertones. Is he a larger than life personality? Yes. Absolutely. But that does not automatically translate into an authoritarian. Not in the slightest.
It's logically and morally dubious for Vox to loosely propagate that particular claim using a singular and oft-challenged scientific method.
The problem will be there are a lot of different angles to the whole greatness question and one looks like greatness to one group doesn't necessarily look like greatness to another. Sooner or later decisions will have to be made and if one doesn't have a more firm set of principles to operate from besides a nebulous notion of "greatness," things could fall apart. My biggest fear in a Trump presidency is that he's going to run it like a television show and if the ratings dip, he'll change the plot or drop a character or do whatever it takes to stay on the air (so to speak). I find it difficult to lump him into the classical definition of authoritarian because most authoritarians come from a more formalized movement (Hitler with the Nazis, Mussolini with the National Fascist Party, Mao and Lenin with various strands of communism). Trump came from "above."
The parenting angle was also played up by George Lakoff (I think it was Lakoff) in his work. I don't know if it really holds water or not.
Anyway, I found both articles--Runnin's and weso's--interesting.
Romney? Romney? Dang this is getting weirder by the moment. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/romne...urce-says.html
Everybody's got to kiss the ring.
No, it was part of his argument about leftists crying wolf about Trump being "openly" racist.
I think having a black friend is actually pretty good evidence that you aren't racist. Never really understood why folks poo poo that one. Maybe the implication is that the person is lying. Of course for most people the correct argument if someone accuses you of being a racist, without evidence, is screw you, you are a ****ty person.
The thesis of the article refutes the idea since it shows how the this move toward authoritarianism has been going on for years. It presents a different narrative to the white supremacist angle which is exactly why I posted it, in a search for other causes.
I don't have time to look now but I don't know that the article even mentions white supremacy or racism.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Just got a call from my friend Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky - no Mexico