Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are these policy authoritarian, centrist or libertarian
#1

Are these policy authoritarian, centrist or libertarian
Is the Trump Presidency slidding the US toward a more authoritarian form of government then it used to be? Can the US under Trump be qualified as an authoritarian government? These are questions that turn around social and traditionnal media from time to time, especially in particularly libertarian and Left-wing sphere like this forum. To make things simple and more objective, Jerry and I have agreed to a small debate where we would take a few key Trump policies, those both his administration and his opposition talk the most about and spend the most time on, to see if indeed those policies are authoritarian in nature and could even be used as a stepping stone to transform the US into an illeberal democracy akin to that of Turkey or Hungary for example.

First thing first, a small definition of what authoritarianism constitute. Authoritarianism is any regime characterised by the following characteristics:

1) Limited political pluralism achieved through legal constrains
2) Political legitimacy is based upon appeal to emotion, most common and obvious of which is the identification of an easily recognizable societal problems such as "underdevelopment", "terrorism", "crime wave", "ethno-cultural jeopardy", etc. that can only be fought by the government in question.
3) Political mobilisation is either supressed or severely limited
4) Ill-defined executive powers and the limit of the power of such executive
5) Weak seperation between judicial and executive powers
6) Wide class disparity within society and especially disparity between men and women
7) Preponderance of the use of force or the threat of it to enforce the government's authority and solve societal problems (real or imagined)

It's good to note that this list isn't complete or universal, but all authoritarian regime ticks at the very least four of these elements to be reasonnably qualified of authoritarian or authoritarian leaning. Authoritarian governments aren't necessarily dictatorship though all dictatorship are authoritarian. Illiberal democracies for example are authoritarian governments, but are democratic in structure though they are opposed to liberal democracy/true democracy, by its lack of protection of civil rights or its uneven application in society (AKA some people get t enjoy the full gamut of civic rights guarantied, while various minorities either outright don't have them or struggle to have them respected and applied evenly to them) and lack of media independance. Authoritarianism strongly correlates with conservatism if only due to historic reasons. The vast majority of historical regimes were authoritarian. Culture and society developped themselves within this framework. Conservative, being interested in the preservation and the continuation of the status quo, are thus much more likely to support and defend authoritarian policies and regimes. But as time pass, the situation could actually reverse itself. 

Now, that this has been said let's take what is probably the most important theme in Trump's campaign and administration: immigration. Are the policies advocated by his administration authoritarian in nature? Trump's use of immigration as a wedge issue in the last election is pretty much self evident and this is going to continue to be the case in the next election. His use and definition of immigration as a grave, if not the gravest threat, to the nation is strongly reminescent of the point number two above. His solution to the problem are the construction of a wall to block off asylum seekers and illegal immigration, the increase in number of the Border Patrol, a policy of zero tolerance for immigrant crossing illegally the frontier requiring their incarceration, place those migrants in temporary detention facilities in remote areas and accelerate the rythm and number of deportations all the while cutting aid toward afflicted countries of Central America where most of those migrants are now comming from. These method are typical of the 7th point where violence and threats are used to "solve" the problem first and foremost. In fact, Trump even moves away from the more "balanced" approach that was increase border control and international aid to move into even more increased border control and no international aid.  Note that some of these measure, namelly the wall, are well understood by anybody in the subject to be a largely symbolic measure and a representation of force more then an actual solution to the problem.

It's also good to note that the ICE agency as well as Immigration Courts are directly under the control and instruction of the Executive branch of the government and not the judiciary which causes an important problem linked to point 5 on this specific issue. Donald Trump wishes to keep this as despite the fact Immigration Courts have been severely criticised by Immigration judges themselves for its shaddy structure and practices that, for example, doesn't provide free legal counseling should a person not have the means to pay one. Considering that this one policy is design to hurt people who belong to identified minority against which violence and poor treatment is tolerable and legitimised by the government rethoric, I would say it's an archetypical authoritarian policy. Any government who would apply such a policy certainly has strong authoritarian proclivities.
The following 3 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Alan V, julep, Szuchow
Reply
#2

Are these policy authoritarian, centrist or libertarian
(08-19-2019, 08:26 PM)epronovost Wrote: Is the Trump Presidency slidding the US toward a more authoritarian form of government then it used to be? Can the US under Trump be qualified as an authoritarian government? These are questions that turn around social and traditionnal media from time to time, especially in particularly libertarian and Left-wing sphere like this forum. To make things simple and more objective, Jerry and I have agreed to a small debate where we would take a few key Trump policies, those both his administration and his opposition talk the most about and spend the most time on, to see if indeed those policies are authoritarian in nature and could even be used as a stepping stone to transform the US into an illeberal democracy akin to that of Turkey or Hungary for example.

First thing first, a small definition of what authoritarianism constitute. Authoritarianism is any regime characterised by the following characteristics:

1) Limited political pluralism achieved through legal constrains
2) Political legitimacy is based upon appeal to emotion, most common and obvious of which is the identification of an easily recognizable societal problems such as "underdevelopment", "terrorism", "crime wave", "ethno-cultural jeopardy", etc. that can only be fought by the government in question.
3) Political mobilisation is either supressed or severely limited
4) Ill-defined executive powers and the limit of the power of such executive
5) Weak seperation between judicial and executive powers
6) Wide class disparity within society and especially disparity between men and women
7) Preponderance of the use of force or the threat of it to enforce the government's authority and solve societal problems (real or imagined)

It's good to note that this list isn't complete or universal, but all authoritarian regime ticks at the very least four of these elements to be reasonnably qualified of authoritarian or authoritarian leaning. Authoritarian governments aren't necessarily dictatorship though all dictatorship are authoritarian. Illiberal democracies for example are authoritarian governments, but are democratic in structure though they are opposed to liberal democracy/true democracy, by its lack of protection of civil rights or its uneven application in society (AKA some people get t enjoy the full gamut of civic rights guarantied, while various minorities either outright don't have them or struggle to have them respected and applied evenly to them) and lack of media independance. Authoritarianism strongly correlates with conservatism if only due to historic reasons. The vast majority of historical regimes were authoritarian. Culture and society developped themselves within this framework. Conservative, being interested in the preservation and the continuation of the status quo, are thus much more likely to support and defend authoritarian policies and regimes. But as time pass, the situation could actually reverse itself. 

Now, that this has been said let's take what is probably the most important theme in Trump's campaign and administration: immigration. Are the policies advocated by his administration authoritarian in nature? Trump's use of immigration as a wedge issue in the last election is pretty much self evident and this is going to continue to be the case in the next election. His use and definition of immigration as a grave, if not the gravest threat, to the nation is strongly reminescent of the point number two above. His solution to the problem are the construction of a wall to block off asylum seekers and illegal immigration, the increase in number of the Border Patrol, a policy of zero tolerance for immigrant crossing illegally the frontier requiring their incarceration, place those migrants in temporary detention facilities in remote areas and accelerate the rythm and number of deportations all the while cutting aid toward afflicted countries of Central America where most of those migrants are now comming from. These method are typical of the 7th point where violence and threats are used to "solve" the problem first and foremost. In fact, Trump even moves away from the more "balanced" approach that was increase border control and international aid to move into even more increased border control and no international aid.  Note that some of these measure, namelly the wall, are well understood by anybody in the subject to be a largely symbolic measure and a representation of force more then an actual solution to the problem.

It's also good to note that the ICE agency as well as Immigration Courts are directly under the control and instruction of the Executive branch of the government and not the judiciary which causes an important problem linked to point 5 on this specific issue. Donald Trump wishes to keep this as despite the fact Immigration Courts have been severely criticised by Immigration judges themselves for its shaddy structure and practices that, for example, doesn't provide free legal counseling should a person not have the means to pay one. Considering that this one policy is design to hurt people who belong to identified minority against which violence and poor treatment is tolerable and legitimised by the government rethoric, I would say it's an archetypical authoritarian policy. Any government who would apply such a policy certainly has strong authoritarian proclivities.

Okay my reply is: calling immigration policy “authoritarian” is like calling it “blue” or “tastes like cheddar cheese.” It just isn't even applicable.

A nation has sovereignty. That's a premise I hope E can accept. Sovereignty means control over who does and does not enter the nation. Expressed by elected leaders, this at times means a liberal legal access to entry and at others a very restrictive legal access, times and circumstances change, but the overriding motivation tends to be what is best for the nation, not those wanting to enter. This is self-evident and obvious. No nation should (again through the will of its elected reps) allow entry to the nation (legally) if it does not benefit the nation, strengthen the nation, with exceptions, there are humanitarian issues and a nation may loosen legal requirements on immigrants in refugee situations, with the understanding that this is compassion, not practicality, through no fault of their own these desperate situations will be a burden on the local tax base for at least awhile. (Disclaimer: there is nothing to suggest they can't or won't go on to become more valuable Americans than many or most of the deadbeats that are born and raised here).

Then you have illegal immigration. Did E note any distinction? It's slippery to call cracking down, or attempting to, on illegal immigration as “authoritarian.” Labeling enforcement of the law, the Rule of Law, “authoritarian” is Orwellian. E makes it seem as if we are starting in a centrist position. Then from that position we move to enforce the law, and this is “authoritarian.” No. Imagine a paradigm from anarchy and lawlessness on one side, the center in the center, and strong govt authoritarianism on the other side. What is happening is this: We are starting from a position not in the center, but far far to the side of border anarchy and lawlessness. (Disclaimer: No don't jump to conclusions, I'm not calling illegal aliens criminals or calling them anarchists. I'm saying it is a situation of lawlessness and anarchy, the actual movement of masses of people across the border illegally; clearly our system is overwhelmed) A centrist position would START with no illegal immigration, period...because that would be the default position on legality versus illegality as expressed by democratically elected representatives and current law. Maybe you could argue that from a true center position, “authoritarianism” would mean moving, through illegal means, to a position restricting or ending legal immigration, but I don't think that's happening.

Epronovost you are right about one thing and that is Trump's maximizing of this issue in 2016. It snipped the balls off the Dem party then and it may do the same thing again in 2020. When the Dems debated the other night, it was asked if providing free health care and easier access to the US was going to encourage more illegal immigration, I don't remember who got the question but it surprised me not at all that the answer was something about not separating families. No one with a brain thinks Democratic policy has to do with compassion, it is all about increasing the number of future Democrats and increasing the number of government dependents, again a Democratic bulwark. Demographics is the future, so this is wise political policy, and it's going to work. (Maybe not in 2020!) But let's not lie about it.
Reply
#3

Are these policy authoritarian, centrist or libertarian
This debate will be between epronovost and jerry mcmasters. If you would like to comment on the debate, you can create a thread here. Any posts in this thread from members other than the two debaters will be moved to a commentary thread.
[Image: 320-C6-ED7-97-CD-4-AB2-A60-A-759-A45-FB7-FE8.jpg]
"The Thinking Atheist forum" “The Thinking Atheist forum closed down" “TTA Forum”
Reply
#4

Are these policy authoritarian, centrist or libertarian
(08-20-2019, 01:33 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Okay my reply is: calling immigration policy “authoritarian” is like calling it “blue” or “tastes like cheddar cheese.” It just isn't even applicable.

I would like to note that I didn't call immigration policy authoritarian. I called the immigration policies of the Trump administration authoritarian. That of the Obama administration could have been qualified of centrist.

Quote:A nation has sovereignty. That's a premise I hope E can accept. Sovereignty means control over who does and does not enter the nation.

I disagree to a certain extand to that premise. Sovereignty means that a govenment can enforce its rule within a certain area delimited by frontiers. A government is sovereign as long as its rules are respected within those frontiers. A country doesn't need to be Nation-State, a country where there is only one national group, to be sovereign nor does it need to be able to block entry to other people into its frontier to be sovereign and exist. It only need to be able to enforce its laws to anybody on its territory. Of course, a nation could pass laws that severely restrict who can enter its territory, for how long, under what circumstances, etc and based this decision on a variety of factor that ranges from social-economical self-interest, self-preservation to xenophobia. The nature of those laws, the reason used to justified them and the method of enforcement are going to determine if they are authoritarian, centrist or libertarian.

Quote:Then you have illegal immigration. Did E note any distinction? It's slippery to call cracking down, or attempting to, on illegal immigration as “authoritarian.” Labeling enforcement of the law, the Rule of Law, “authoritarian” is Orwellian. E makes it seem as if we are starting in a centrist position. Then from that position we move to enforce the law, and this is “authoritarian.”

That's incorrect. The method of enforcement of the law and the severity and restrictivity of law itself are going to determine of it's authoritarian, centrist or libertarian. A law that is strict and restrictive and enforced by the use of force and the threat of it all the while being popularised by appeal to fear is the very archetype of authoritarianism. I think Donald Trump policies on immigration is pretty much all three.

Quote:A centrist position would START with no illegal immigration, period...because that would be the default position on legality versus illegality as expressed by democratically elected representatives and current law.

Could you clarify this passage. From what I can parse from it, you seem to be advocating that the default centrist position would be that the law enforcement should seek to completely erradicate a crime which is clearly not the case except in the very most totalitarian regime. Law enforcement has the goal to protect from and control criminality not erradicate it completely as the later would rely on an absolutely inhumane level of control to be possible. This is especially true for non-violent and non-property crimes like illegal border crossing which is only a misdemeanor no more catastrophic then burning a red light or speeding. A certain amount of clemency and tolerance is to be expected toward such crimes and the punishment for those who have broken the law and aren't awarded with clemency in regard to some special circumstances is to be appropriate for the level of danger they represent to society. Finally people who commit minor offense such like these don't deserve to be viewed with a special level of fear and contempt by mainstream society. 

Currently, the Trump administration has applied a policy of zero tolerance which forces incarceration to all people crossing illegaly the border and don't offer them a fair hearing before an independant courtroom and this no matter the circumstances. The detention facilities themselves are also deeply inadequate making all detention time, which is unknown and extremely variable, cruel. This is a fairly textbook authoritarian.  

Quote:No one with a brain thinks Democratic policy has to do with compassion, it is all about increasing the number of future Democrats and increasing the number of government dependents, again a Democratic bulwark. Demographics is the future, so this is wise political policy, and it's going to work. (Maybe not in 2020!) But let's not lie about it.

This to me is conspiracy theory and nativism at its worst. It basically implies that the Republican party is incapable of rebranding itself in the following 20 years or so. It relies completely on the fact that the Republican party will or must continue to defend nativist and racist policies all the while implying that the immigrants who arrive now are going to be dependant of governmental assistance in majority for more then one or two generations, both of which are far from being certain. It's also not really pertinent to the subject except to mention that if this is true for the Democrats, the opposite is true for the Republican that their opposition to mass immigration is based on political interest and their laws restricting immigration aren't based on the nation superior interests or its capacity to integrate immigrants, but based on a desire to limit mobilisation against their administration which is one of the key characteristics of authoritarianism.
The following 2 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Alan V, Szuchow
Reply
#5

Are these policy authoritarian, centrist or libertarian
Considering it has been almost three weeks since the last post, I consider that Jerry has abandon me like a bride on the altar and declare this debate over. I will let popular opinion determine who won or if the debate result in a draw. Considering the extremely low number of post, I think calling it a draw seems resonnable.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • julep
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)