Dmarks correctly noted the fact that there are different brands of authoritarianism depending on which ‘side’ (right/left) you’re looking at. Let’s do a quick run-down of a handful of issues at the most superficial/generalized level:
| Issue | Right | Left |
| Gun rights | Libertarian | Authoritarian |
| Marriage rights | Authoritarian | Libertarian |
| Sex/Reproduction/Contraception rights | Authoritarian | Libertarian |
| Safety/Environmental Regs | Libertarian | Authoritarian |
| Govt Spending – Military | Authoritarian | Libertarian |
| Govt Spending – Social Programs | Libertarian | Authoritarian |
So each side has its priorities and its ‘authoritarian’ moments, depending on the issue.
With the exception of gun rights, the political Right seems to be authoritarian with respect to individual liberties, and libertarian with respect to corporate liberties. The reverse is true of the political Left.
Of course, the nature of safety/environmental regs, for example, are to protect rights of individuals against authoritarian power that could be exerted by corporations – rights to things like clean air/water, for example – more fundamental than even constitutional rights, these we would regard as ‘birthrights’ that should be available under any system of government, like the right to choose a mate. Rights that should be available even to simple animals. So such regs are either authoritarian, or libertarian, depending on your point of view.
See, the reality is that part of maintaining freedom is limiting the power than could be exerted by certain individuals over the rest of the group. If you had Absolute Freedom (i.e. no laws at all) then everything would be very wild and woolly, until a certain individual or group could gain enough power to take over, and would then have the capacity to limit or eliminate everyone else’s freedoms.
Where the Right exerts authoritarian tendencies the results are more mixed. The purest form of authoritarianism is the rash of gay-marriage ban amendments. These are purely authoritarian in the sense that they protect no one’s rights, and carry no benefits for anyone, but are simply an effort to control the lives of others, presumably for the power rush that it gives to those who enjoy being in a position to judge the private lives of others. This is a fairly recent development, I suspect a busybody element in our mass psychology that’s an outgrowth of ‘reality TV’ entertainment.
I agree completely with what you say about the gay marriage bans. However, the left-right division on this is more complicated. President Obama campaigned on opposition to gay marriage and remained opposed to it at least through 2010. Also, the anti-gay proposition in California was passed with strong support from a very strongly liberal block of voters: African-Americans.
ReplyDeleteI see you left out "abortion" on this list. This one is mixed also: both those who oppose AND favor abortion do so based out of a passion for individual liberties.
Racial/etc discrimination is also complicated. The Left is more hardline against discrimination (Libertarian, say, for the black person wanting to eat at the Woolworth's lunch counter, and Authoritarian for the person running the Woolworth's) except in the situation of affirmative action, where the Right is libertarian (wanting individuals to be treated the same without regard to race).
Another one to mention is free speech rights, First Amendment rights. The Right is at this time more libertarian, opposing the "Fairness Doctrine" still favored by many on the Left that would impose a censorship regime on the broadcast media.
True the abortion issue is much more complex because of the moral ambiguities: this is a situation pitting the rights of an individual (pregnant woman) against the rights of the (depending on your point of view) fetus or individual developing inside. Then it gets to issues of when life begins, when that life really constitutes a 'person', when/whether there is a 'soul', etc.
ReplyDeleteAs to 'free speech' rights - this gets tricky because get too loose and you can get into a situation where a few wealthy individuals or corporations can control the debate and discussion through control of airtime. Under that situation the voters still perceive themselves as having freedom of choice but it's largely illusory: their choice can be manipulated easily with distorted information. True freedom is choice based on information and facts. Manipulated choice is an illusion of freedom, an insidious form of authoritarianism.
"Distorted information" is disputable. People can and do make up their minds and can evaluate such information. There is no such situation of "control" of debate. In fact, that smacks of conspiracy theory. And the "control" withers. We have more national news sources on TV than we did 25 years ago, and TV watching overall is dwindling.
DeleteSo there is still complete "Freedom of choice", and the fact that some people are saying stuff you disagree with does not negate that at all.
I'm not suggesting any conspiracy -- it's just the way self-interest shakes out, in an age of companies consolidating into corporations and corporations consolidating into multinational institutions. Today about six corporations control the vast majority of news information. In another decade or so it'll probably be down to three. And and so on. These things are destined to protect certain interests as any such entity. You don't need conspiracies, eventually just mechanics of cause-and-effect in a profit-driven motivation context drive things a certain direction.
DeleteIt's not a question of stuff you disagree with - that's always been out there. But there are some things that are, quite simply, true, or false. Scientific facts. There do exist some actual facts at the bottom of many debates, and that gets lost today. Since the news industry has increasingly steered towards the political-advocacy models of Fox (right) and MSNBC (left) (there are myriad other examples right and left) it seems like fact-based analyses are fewer and far between than they was years ago.
A more disturbing result of the political-advocacy model of 'news' is its tendency to demonize the opposing sides and steadily increasingly radicalize its audience. Not intentionally, of course, but simply through the marketing/catering to its selected audience as the profit motive drives. If you watch & listen it feels like there's an entire industry devoted to convincing the right/left half of America that its mortal enemy is the left/right half of America.
"In another decade or so it'll probably be down to three."
DeleteActually, the trend goes otherwise, when it comes to TV broadcast media. There used to be 3. Now there are 5 or 6. More and more voices jump in all the time. And if you use the Internet, very few rely on these big 5 or 6. Come on, do you go to Time magazine's web site (Time Warner) or know anyone who does?
Media concentration is a myth. The most popular magazines, publishing companies, etc are owned by a very few companies. But there are thousands who are able to get their voice out there, especially through the Web. Or through large bookstores like Barnes and Noble which have "Adbusters" and scads of obscure magazines from diverse voices on their shelves available to the general public. You just did not have this 25 years ago. Or public access cable, with "Democracy Now" and the like. More new voices that come up.
"....it seems like fact-based analyses are fewer and far between than they was years ago."
It's a fact that such analyses are far more common than they were years ago, actually. Long ago, only PBS offered this, with the occasional rare documentary on CBS, etc. This is true on TV and radio. C-SPAN is an invaluable source, and is just one example of this trend. Of diminishing concentration and growing news coverage and diversity of such. Even MTV offers critical reporting from time to time.
Sure Hannity and Maddow offer "convincing the right/left half of America that its mortal enemy" but these are just two shows among a very large number of programming offerings, which also include the worthwhile analysis in Fox News own "Fox News Watch", CNN's "World View" and many others.
And to address this comment about free speech: "As to 'free speech' rights - this gets tricky because get too loose and you can get into a situation where a few wealthy individuals or corporations can control the debate and discussion through control of airtime."
ReplyDeleteThis is much less of a problem than it was 35 years ago. When only CBS, ABC, PBS, and NBC controlled things. Now there are so many more voices involved (partially due to the removal of the Fairness Doctrine censorship) and it is a lot harder for anyone to control anything.
This is as it should be.