What are the Authoritarian leanings of the American right-wing?

[Thunder]

Many right-wingers argue that Nazis have more in common with liberals then conservatives. Well, in some respects, they are right.

The core of National Socialist beliefs were authoritarianism. The state decides everything, from health, to business, to social life, to the environment, to sex.

The state controlling things and making decisions is much more of a liberal attitude then a conservative belief. At least today.

What are the hall mark right-wing ideas?

-no gun control (highly anti-Authoritarian)

-no government regulations (highly anti-Authoritarian)

-less or no taxes (highly anti-Authoritarian)

-less government funded and controlled programs (anti-Authoritarian)

-make abortion illegal (Authoritarian)

-make gay marriage illegal (Authoritarian)

clearly, modern day conservative and Republican views are on the anti-Authoritarian side

but what about the views and goals of liberals and conservatives?

-strong government regulations over business (Authoritarian)

-anti-smoking laws (Authoritarian)

-strong environmental laws (Authoritarian)

-legalized gay marriage (anti-Authoritarian)

-legalized abortion (anti-Authoritarian)

-more gun control (Authoritarian)

-govt. controlled health care (Authoritarian)

-congestion pricing for cars in cities (Authoritarian)

-more land use and preservation laws (Authoritarian)

-affirmative action even in cases of unproven discrimination (Authoritarian)

so, while the spirit of liberal and Democratic views and goals are nothing like the Nazis, the fact is, as far as government involvement and regulation is concerned, liberals and Democrats do have more in common with Nazis and Communists then Republicans and conservatives.

I know it sounds harsh, but sometimes the truth is harsh. I myself am a liberal, a Democrat, and support most if not all of the liberal/Democratic goals I listed above.

But, I fear, as history as taught us, the more authoritarianism a society has, the more risk there is that well-intentioned authoritarianism can mutate into bad or even evil authoritarianism.

Power corrupts. It doesn't matter how nice a guy you are or how lovely your goals are. The more power we give government, the greater the chances of abuse, or that power being used for things we do not want in the end.

[Dancing David]

Wow, what a simplistics reduction and oversimplification, you can regulate the market place to prevent harm to consumers, is that authoritarian?
You can overturn the COTUS by extending executive power, is that anti-authoritarian.

No group of humans is homegenous, so your simplitics notions are failures from the start. You can be a fiscal conservative and a social lineral. You could even be a market driven system and believe in universal health care.

This is one of the problems with dominance of monotheism is western culture, to the overarching need to over simplify and reduce complex plural systems to one shot deals.

Even the german national socialism was more complex that you portray. Free reign for captilists and empty promises to the SA about equality. I suggest you read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and the Albert Speer's book, Arms of Krupp, Hitler wanted power and he wanted war. Those were his motivations for staying in power, the rest was all lies, deceptions, bribes and sharing enough power to get in place and stay in place.

The key to politics is simple, stay in power.

[Thunder]

anti-gun, anti-gov. control, anti-gov. regulation, are all Libertarian ideas. Not Authoritarian.

more gun control, more gov. regulations, more gov. control of health care and and other aspects of our society ARE Authoritarian ideas.

Authoritarian= government control and authority over society. This is what the Nazis were.
Libertarian= as little as possible government control and regulation over society. This is NOT what the Nazis were.

again, I support more gun laws, govt. regulations on corporations and the environment, and a govt. health care option. sadly, these are authoritarian and not libertarian ideas.

but i can admit it...show should you be able to.

I believe we should have government control ONLY where necessary and where the private sector and private enterprise has PROVEN to be bad for the people of the USA. Other then that, the govt. should stay out of it.

but when in doubt, we should ALWAYS err on the side of less government involvement, regulation, and control.

[WildCat]

Wow, what a simplistics reduction and oversimplification,
Hear hear!

[kellyb]

I'm a "progressive" liberal, but I also agree with parky. To an extent. I'm just not a fan of opposing social progress on the grounds of "slippery slope" arguments, though. I think we can have our cake and eat it, too; we can create a better world and also vigorously defend freedom, democracy, etc. But it's worth taking note of history and being vigilant about the threats to liberty.

Also, it's worth noting that there are hard-core theocrats in the right-wing, too. They sort of equalise the authoritarian balance, IMO.

[Ziggurat]

The Nazi comparison is unhelpful, but many elements of the left/right comparison are quite correct. The left is in favor of more sexual freedoms, but on almost every other issue it's the right which is in favor of more freedoms. No surprise which way the youth vote leans. The right is against drug freedoms, but so is the left (speaking in general, there are always individual exceptions).

[kellyb]

There's also a matter of what I can only describe as "primary freedom" vs "secondary freedom". In more "progressive" societies, everyone is free to attend university regardless of their income. And "free" of worries about medical bills landing them in bankruptcy court. Free to start their own businesses without having to worry about health insurance. Etc.

[Scootch]

the nazi party was the national socialist party (is that a different socialism? i really dont know)

[Dancing David]

the nazi party was the national socialist party (is that a different socialism? i really dont know)


Again people need to read the historical rise of the Third Reich, in the Weimar republic there was great instability driven by the depression and reparations. The Communist Party, which was a mix of Bolsheviks and Internationalists were brawling in the street with the SA (Brown Shirts). The SA was largely disaffected soldiers and lower SES people who felt screwed over by the war. So Hitler promised then that he would give them comfort and comfortable jobs. But he knew that he needed the patriarchs and capitalists to win the Chancellor and fight against the Allies.

So as soon as it became expedient he had his strongest political ally assassinated and also never fulfilled his lies to the SA.

It was a very capitalist free market form socialism.

[Dancing David]

See I do not think that one side is more for liberty than the other or that one is more authoritarian.

Social justice is about equality and that is what I think a lot of liberalism is about. But then I am a reformed socialist and I believe in market competition as well. But there are good free market reasons for certain liberal values.

A level playing field benefits all, have social privilege does not benefit the system as a whole. Equal oppotunity is a big leveler.

But to say that I want the government to control people is absurd, I want the government to help the general weal. Not having toxic agents in the environment is a good thing, but it does not have to be absurd.

I am a conservative in many ways, our governement does spend a lot of money foolishly, like foreign aid, it goes through so many layersonly 20% or less actually gets to the people it is meant to help.

But to say that I am authoritarian because I think domestic violence laws should be enforced or that ANCARA should be enforced, I don't agree with it. Equality is sometimes a long road.

[Thunder]

Authoritarianism means government control over society, economy, and industry.

Libertarianism means little to no government control over society, economy, and industry.

Clearly, current day Liberals and Democrats are more on the side of Authoritarianism then are Republicans and Conservatives.

Technically, Authoritarianism is not a BAD thing. It simply means that the people trust the state collectively through their representatives (Government) to govern vast portions of the life of the state. The end result COULD be both good or bad.

Libertarianism technically means that the less the government is involved, the better society will run, as the free market and personal responsibility and private individuals can best be trusted to keep society running smoothly, efficiently, and effectively.

I honestly believe that history has shown that society is best run with both Libertarian AND Authoritarian elements. Clearly, we need strong environmental, criminal, corporate, health care, and other regulations. Human beings have been proven to be mostly guided by greed and a lack of care for their common man.

But there needs to be a clear limit to how much authority government should have over the people. A delicate balance is possible.

[Puppycow]

The state controlling things and making decisions is much more of a liberal attitude then a conservative belief.

I reject your premise. You misunderstand the word liberal and conflate it with the left. In this, you unwittingly conspire with the conservatives' fairly successful campaign to redefine the word.

The original meaning of "liberal" applies to people like Adam Smith and David Hume, the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution and the tradition of The Enlightenment and primacy of human reason over religious and aristocratic authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[GreNME]

I reject your premise. You misunderstand the word liberal and conflate it with the left. In this, you unwittingly conspire with the conservatives' fairly successful campaign to redefine the word.

And the Libertarian Party's past campaigns to redefine the term, often using conservative leaning ideologies to do so.

Yes, the OP presents a faulty premise.

[Puppycow]

. . . liberals and Democrats do have more in common with Nazis and Communists then Republicans and conservatives.
. . .
I myself am a liberal, a Democrat, and support most if not all of the liberal/Democratic goals I listed above.

Epic Fail (http://kevinrobinson.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/epic_fail.jpg) my friend. Epic.

[Juniversal]

The Nazi comparison is unhelpful, but many elements of the left/right comparison are quite correct. The left is in favor of more sexual freedoms, but on almost every other issue it's the right which is in favor of more freedoms. No surprise which way the youth vote leans. The right is against drug freedoms, but so is the left (speaking in general, there are always individual exceptions).What he said..^ The comparison to Nazi's is pretty arbitrary and unnecessary. Nazi's=Authoritarian, so Democrats Authoritarian policies=comparible to Nazi's?? That's no less nonsensical then Nazi's=Conservatives so Republicans=Nazi's imo. Now authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian and the implications in terms of Go'vt control and power is perfectly fair.

[Skeptic]

Perhaps I'm biased, but the authoritarianism in American politics seems to me is far more prevalent on the left than on the right. More accurately, perhaps, is to say that while they exist on both the left and the right, on the right such authoritarian views are on the fringe, while on the right, they are mainstream.

We all know some right-wing folks who think they are part of a tiny elite of truly moral people, and if they could, they would use the power of government to educate everybody to think as they do, since it is intolerable that so many people still have not reached their level of morality. But they are few. This sort of totalitarian thinking, however is practically dogma on the "leftier" sides of the democratic party.

I quit reading free inquiry magazine when it became clear to me that those folks, their claims for freedom notwithstanding, simply oppose anybody being religious anywhere in public -- that their attitude toward religion is the same as the old attitude towards homosexuality: it can be tolerated, but only as long as it is done behind closed doors without anybody else noticing.

On another issue, one particularly unhinged columnist there is on record, publicly, in favor of starving to death babies with birth defects, and she writes -- without a trace of irony -- that she is shocked (SHOCKED!) that people called her and rudely accused her of being a "baby killer". No doubt, she claims, it's due to their stupid and brainwashing religious upbringing.

But free inquiry is not some ranting hate-sheet like, say, an authoritarian pro-KKK bulletin some guy prints in his basement. It represents the avant guard of "progressive" thought. It seems to be totally blind to how sneeringly intolerant it is, and -- worse -- what draconian anti-freedom and anti-life powers they support.

[Puppycow]

On another issue, one particularly unhinged columnist there is on record, publicly, in favor of starving to death babies with birth defects, and she writes -- without a trace of irony -- that she is shocked (SHOCKED!) that people called her and rudely accused her of being a "baby killer". No doubt, she claims, it's due to their stupid and brainwashing religious upbringing.

I'm curious who that is?

[Dancing David]

Why is the recognition that the playing field is not level and saying that equality should be the government goal authoritarian?

Lets see, it is authoritarian to say that there should be clean water and clean air?
It was authoritarian to say that people with dark pigmented skin should have the same legal treatment as paler people?
It is authoritarian to say women should get equal treatment to men? Like the right to vote?

[Dancing David]

Now the eagle form is being linked to because it is absurd, but read how Schafley who is extremely right wing (absurdly so) takes the position that equal rights for women is bad, this is not meant as a serious argument, just an example of entertainment:
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/Feminism/index.shtml

Like her take on the movie Jubo, which i don't think she actually watched. I don't recall Juno was going to have an abortion either.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/mar08/08-03-19.html

All Juno's happy talk about placing her baby in a good home with loving parents is forgotten. Mark's departure breaks the adoption contract, and Juno could easily have found another two-parent home.

But that was not important to Juno. She gladly gives the baby to Vanessa where he will become one more statistic of a boy raised in a fatherless home.

[Fiona]

I too think that this way of characterising things is rather odd.

Authoritarianism is not tied to government power as such, in my mind at least: it is tied to any organisation which has unaccountable power over the individual. And here the crucial point is "unaccountable"

A functioning democracy is not unaccountable: it is certainly true that there will be messy compromises because interests really do conflict: but it is also true that in such a system those compromises will have limits and they will be relatively transparent

What is the alternative? Since there will always be organisations and there will always be power and influence then inevitably in the absence of the rule of law there will be privileged groups who will organise things to suit themselves

For me the most obvious example of authoritarianism in modern western society is the company which can hire and fire without reason: for they have unfettered power over the individual. It can be argued that the individual can choose to work somewhere else and so he can: in just the same way that he is free to dine at the Ritz when he has no money. It is absurd to pretend that this is a negotiation between equal parties: an individual can never be equal with his or her employer and nothing is ever going to change that

So authoritarianism is a position which can be occupied by any powerful organisation and in fact the aim of democracy is to vest that power in an institution which is by definition accountable.

The list that you give, Parky, can be seen as you present it:it can also be seen in other ways. Freedom to is not the only freedom: freedom from matters too.

For example:

You present the right to bear arms as a freedom to: and call it anti-authoritarian because it allows the individual to make his own decision without government interference

For me the right to live without fear of being shot is a freedom from: and gun control is anti-authoritarian because it enhances my confidence that I can walk down the street without fear of being killed by a random nutter with a legal gun

You present no government regulations as freedom to

For me government regulation is freedom to eat what is sold in the shops without fear of being poisoned: and freedom to use more of my time in ways which please me because I do not have to spend so much of it ensuring I am not being harmed by toxic industrial processes etc: and I can have some confidence that there are people with some expertise keeping me safe from that - I do not have the skills or knowledge to do it myself for everything that would have to be addressed

You say that no tax is a freedom from: and is anti-authoritarian

For me less or no tax means that there is no freedom from death or poverty should my life circumstances lead me to unemployment or illness, Not to mention the increase in freedom which good roads etc allow me

In short freedom from is more important to me than freedom to because freedom to is much more often illusory.

I cannot see this as anything other than acceptance of a particular ideological way of interpreting rather complex facts.

[Praktik]

I too think the OP is a little over simplistic in suggesting that any method of government control is by definition, authoritarian. To take just one example, are "strong environmental laws" authoritarian? How many fascist or socialist "strongman" authoritarian governments made environmentalism a feature of their policies?

The term "authoritarian" can't be applied so easily - what it refers to is more the method of government. Are laws developed through collaborative democratic mechanisms - or are they writ by decree? Is there a cult of personality for the head of state? What mechanisms of redress or correction are available to parties affected by new legislative acts?

In this way you could have a host of laws that involve government control of certain facets of the economy and the environment - yet have none of them be considered "authoritarian", since they were developed and applied through democratic means with proper checks against constitutionality and with the means to correct legislative problems with either redress in the courts or future acts of parliament/congress etc.

Now, what we're really talking about, is whether liberalism conforms to the Goldberg-esque conception of fascism, or whether (in the real, non-Goldberg world) movement conservatism has more "fascist tendencies".

First off, we should define what we mean by "fascism", and I think Paxton has offered us one of the better definitions here: (http://www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf)

"Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline."

Elsewhere, he refines this further as

"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Takeaway: intense nationalism, militant activity, anti-democratic, a vision of a nation in decline and an eventual national rebirth.

Reading the literature of the movement conservatives perhaps the most common theme is that of national decline. What I have come to term "golden age syndrome" is rife, perhaps indicating the roots of the movement since it has in large part metastisized as a reaction to the rapid social change of the 50s and 60s. My impression is that many in the movement have rose-coloured view of what America "used to be", one that casts American history as something of a fall from grace. There are two components to this view: firstly that there was an Eden of America in the past, and secondly, that this Age of Eden has ended and there are elements in American society now that are responsible for this. If only we could identify these elements and cleanse ourselves of them, we can then prepare the ground for a national rebirth.

Now this is manifested in different ways and to different degrees. You have your Hannitys and Bernie Goldbergs who identify the "fifth column", the "useful idiots" who are unknowingly Destroying America and well, the unredeemables who are actively and consciously working towards that end. On the most extreme end of this spectrum you have your militias, your Stormfronts and McVeighs - for whom the End of America has largely already happened: the government is in the hands of the enemy and the culture is in the hands of the enemy. While it would be facile to say that Goldberg/Hannity = Stormfront, what they do share in common is an intense nationalism, "golden age syndrome" and an identification of elements in American society they see as responsible for ending that golden age. Stormfront sees the rebirth of America through fire and race war - Hannity and Goldberg likely see it through a Permament Republican Majority, and perhaps, shipping all the Lie-berals to Canada.

The victim mentality is a big part of this and I defy anyone to expose themselves to Michael Savage, Limbaugh, Malkin and others in the conservative echo chamber and not come away with an impression that these individuals both feel intensely a sense of victimhood and invite their listeners to share in that feeling. I think this is part of the theme of America's fall from grace: these individuals are the victims of that fall. In a more tense political environment this sense of victimhood personally and national decline more generally could result in violent manifestations (and I think we see that already on the fringes). More generally however devotees are not advocating violence against America's Fifth Column as they are political exile from the democratic debate. After all, when your democratic opposition is stated as engaging in acts of "treason" - you're essentially saying they should be relegated to the outside of the political sphere. While the punishment for treason is death, only the fringe seems to be intellectually coherent here in following this "treason" theme to its logical end. The rest just want them relegated to political inneffectualness.

What I think this does display though is the beginnings of the "anti-democratic" aspect of Fascism as Paxton has outlined above. Eventually strongmen like Hitler or Mussolini took over the machinery of democracy because that machinery was seen to be working against the interest of the state. Read the literature of the far-right and you'll read about the evils of liberal indoctrination which has stacked the public service with liberals, you'll read about the evils of the supreme court and of the political opposition, the Democrats. Plainly, there is a fear that the machinery of democracy is in the Hands of the Enemy. Now, I think that clearly this has not progressed anywhere near to the point where we are ripe for a conservative movement to advocate for a leader of theirs to subvert the traditions of American democracy - but I think that there are moments where the conservative culture seems to hint that democracy is either "under threat" or perhaps, "tainted" (and maybe irrevocably so).

One of the things the OP had me thinking about though was the ways in which you could point to certain things about the conservatives that run the other way: take small or limited government. On its face this would seem to be an anti-fascist or anti-authoritarian mindset. But dig a little deeper. While there are plenty of responsible, smart and interesting people out there who hold to the ideas of limited government - how are these ideas transmitted more frequently? What's behind them? You listen to a Limbaugh version of "limited government" and what you hear more than "I am for limited government" is "I am against big government!" What undergirds the mass-marketing of these ideas in many cases is an intense anti-government ideology and it is precisely this sentiment taken to the extreme which could lead one to an almost proto-fascist anti-democratic approach as I outlined in the preceding paragraph. In this sense, curiously, an idea that appears to be anti-authoritarian on its face could lead to very authoritarian places.

Now - all of this is not to argue that the Republicans are fascist, that movement conservatism as a whole is fascist, or that even Limbaugh or Bernie Goldberg or Michael Savage are fascist. What I am arguing is that if you're going to be comparing the sociology and history of liberalism and conservatism in an effort to compare them to examples of historical fascism then it is clear that conservatism more closely parallels fascism thematically than liberalism does. The OP reduced complex policy positions to a simplistic "authoritarian" or "anti-authoritarian" formula. Fascism however is not a set of policy prescriptions, rather it is an ideology that rests on certain core features and can't be seen as being embodied in a single leader like Hitler - it relies on a broader movement that extends down through the polity and so I think we are probably better off looking at the socio-cultural history and themes of a given society when judging its propensity for fascism rather than creating a checklist of policy prescriptions or looking at any single leader in politics.

[casebro]

But aren't we on a slippery slope of MORE REGULATION? (Isn't that a good definition of authoritarianism?)

The Dems are in power now, will pass more regs to garner support of their party.

The Reps will arise again, and pass laws that give them an advantage at the polls.

NOBODY ever cancels old laws or programs, that we did not need for maybe 200 years before. Both parties are authoritarian.

[Praktik]

But aren't we on a slippery slope of MORE REGULATION? (Isn't that a good definition of authoritarianism?).

No. Regulation is not a determining factor of authoritarianism. The method in which regulations are enacted/removed is what makes something authoritarian. Conceptually, you could have an Ayn Randi-ian wet-dream of a leader making a Small Government Paradise by fiat and decree. So even removing all regulations, something you would think is "anti-authoritarian" could be done in an authoritarian way.

As Fiona outline in her post - it has more to do with accountability than it does with government regulation.

How were the regulations decided? Were they imposed by decree with no mechanism for redress? Or were they developed through collaborative democracy subject to court review and future corrective legislation?

that's what determines whether something is authoritarian or not.

From wiki:

Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by typically non-elected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom.

[billydkid]

I'm a "progressive" liberal, but I also agree with parky. To an extent. I'm just not a fan of opposing social progress on the grounds of "slippery slope" arguments, though. I think we can have our cake and eat it, too; we can create a better world and also vigorously defend freedom, democracy, etc. But it's worth taking note of history and being vigilant about the threats to liberty.

Also, it's worth noting that there are hard-core theocrats in the right-wing, too. They sort of equalise the authoritarian balance, IMO.Well, there's the rub - "social progress". Your "social progress" may be my collectivist, authoritarian, social engineering. People have to ask themselves what actually leads to a more humane, peaceful and decent society. Not what we prefer to believe leads to those things. I believe the left/right, liberal/conservative paradigm is not just false, but deliberately deceptive. It represents an attempt to constrain debate to within certain parameters in which the basic power structure of things is not threatened. The "right" has always been authoritarian, but so has the left. They just emphasize different things. The conflict is always really between collectivism and the belief in that complete abstraction "society" and individualism. I am convinced that collectivism always leads to suffering and injustice, whether it comes from the right or the left.

[Dancing David]

Interesting post BK, I will consider.

On the surface I have to say i don't agree, but I must think upon it. Collective defense is what happened to the US, no more state militias.

[kellyb]

I am convinced that collectivism always leads to suffering and injustice, whether it comes from the right or the left.

Do you consider Norway (for example) "collectivist"?
If so, what suffering and injustices do their citizens have to endure as a result?

[Earthborn]

Parky, in your list of properties of political movements with which you compare the American right-wing and left-wing with Nazism (never a particularly constructive comparison) you left out a few, and they are biggies: militarism and xenophobia. Both are factors without which Nazism would be unrecognisable, and both are most commonly associated with the right-wing.

You also state that legalised abortion is anti-Authoritarian, but I don't think the Nazis were against abortion.

[Igopogo]

post #21.

Bang on post.

[Darth Rotor]

Here is a data point that the New York School system is losing the War on Stupid.
Many right-wingers argue that Nazis have more in common with liberals then conservatives. Well, in some respects, they are right.

The core of National Socialist beliefs were authoritarianism. The state decides everything, from health, to business, to social life, to the environment, to sex.

The state controlling things and making decisions is much more of a liberal attitude then a conservative belief. At least today.

What are the hall mark right-wing ideas?

-no gun control (highly anti-Authoritarian)

-no government regulations (highly anti-Authoritarian)

-less or no taxes (highly anti-Authoritarian)

-less government funded and controlled programs (anti-Authoritarian)

-make abortion illegal (Authoritarian)

-make gay marriage illegal (Authoritarian)

clearly, modern day conservative and Republican views are on the anti-Authoritarian side

but what about the views and goals of liberals and conservatives?

-strong government regulations over business (Authoritarian)

-anti-smoking laws (Authoritarian)

-strong environmental laws (Authoritarian)

-legalized gay marriage (anti-Authoritarian)

-legalized abortion (anti-Authoritarian)

-more gun control (Authoritarian)

-govt. controlled health care (Authoritarian)

-congestion pricing for cars in cities (Authoritarian)

-more land use and preservation laws (Authoritarian)

-affirmative action even in cases of unproven discrimination (Authoritarian)

so, while the spirit of liberal and Democratic views and goals are nothing like the Nazis, the fact is, as far as government involvement and regulation is concerned, liberals and Democrats do have more in common with Nazis and Communists then Republicans and conservatives.

I know it sounds harsh, but sometimes the truth is harsh. I myself am a liberal, a Democrat, and support most if not all of the liberal/Democratic goals I listed above.

But, I fear, as history as taught us, the more authoritarianism a society has, the more risk there is that well-intentioned authoritarianism can mutate into bad or even evil authoritarianism.

Power corrupts. It doesn't matter how nice a guy you are or how lovely your goals are. The more power we give government, the greater the chances of abuse, or that power being used for things we do not want in the end.
QED

[SezMe]

Darth is right, comparing policies (especially in contrast to Nazism) to illuminate the authoritarianism question is a fool's errand. I suggest parky (and Skeptic) read John Dean's Conservatives without Conscience.

To understand contemporary conservative thinking it is essential to understand authoritarian thinking and behavior in the context of traditional political conservatism, for authoritarianism has become the dominant reality of conservative thought.

[Praktik]

Darth is right, comparing policies (especially in contrast to Nazism) to illuminate the authoritarianism question is a fool's errand. I suggest parky (and Skeptic) read John Dean's Conservatives without Conscience.

Good book!!