From: ‘Charlie Kirk Miracle’ - the Authoritarianism discussion

[Res Ipsa]

Trump is the head of a type of movement that is a first in the USA in my lifetime -- a genuine authoritarian populist movement. The strongman at the head of such movements is always surrounded by a cult of personality. There never was a comparable movement with Biden or Harris at its center. They were just political candidates that most on the left held their noses and voted for. There is no symmetry.

[Kishkumen]

Trump is the head of a type of movement that is a first in the USA in my lifetime -- a genuine authoritarian populist movement. The strongman at the head of such movements is always surrounded by a cult of personality. There never was a comparable movement with Biden or Harris at its center. They were just political candidates that most on the left held their noses and voted for. There is no symmetry.

Bingo. Exactly. The aberration of MAGAism is given too much oxygen by the whataboutism of our two-party discourse. People want to feel fair, so they work really hard to balance their assessment of the two sides by making them seem as equal in their minds as possible, in good and in bad ways. That worked fine as long as the GOP existed as more than a shell for an authoritarian populist movement. Now comparing the two sides is a comparison of apples and oranges.

[Whiskey]

Trump is the head of a type of movement that is a first in the USA in my lifetime -- a genuine authoritarian populist movement. The strongman at the head of such movements is always surrounded by a cult of personality. There never was a comparable movement with Biden or Harris at its center. They were just political candidates that most on the left held their noses and voted for. There is no symmetry.

Bingo. Exactly. The aberration of MAGAism is given too much oxygen by the whataboutism of our two-party discourse. People want to feel fair, so they work really hard to balance their assessment of the two sides by making them seem as equal in their minds as possible, in good and in bad ways. That worked fine as long as the GOP existed as more than a shell for an authoritarian populist movement. Now comparing the two sides is a comparison of apples and oranges.

However, when pressed to explain how this so-called “populist authoritarianism” actually differs from the progressive Democratic alternative, the experts suddenly clam up. The progressive formula boils down to: Trump did it, therefore it’s authoritarian. Biden would have done the opposite with more of the correct authority and that is great, and Kamala wasn’t a registered Nazi biological male yet with a proper fitting military uniform. That’s the whole argument.

Except for the scary drama of “if you don’t allow voting by mail, most grandmas will die,” from an authority perspective what the hell is the actual difference between the parties?

So tell us, progressive experts: honorentheos claims there are “countless examples” where one party wants the federal government to “opt in” with authority while the other wants it to “opt out” with no authority. Do you have those examples, or is this just another empty talking point?

And spare us the new buzzwords. “Populist authoritarianism” Cry me a river. Populism is fine and does not need your BS authoritarianism tag. Unless and until you can clearly distinguish yourselves from Nick Fuentes, save the labels for your own safety helmets.

[Kishkumen]

However, when pressed to explain how this so-called “populist authoritarianism” actually differs from the progressive Democratic alternative, the experts suddenly clam up.

Good grief, man. You can go read about this stuff on your own time. If you can't figure out the difference between a traditional American political party and a populist authoritarian movement, maybe you should go do some study and come back here when you are able to acknowledge the existence of the differences.

[Whiskey]

However, when pressed to explain how this so-called “populist authoritarianism” actually differs from the progressive Democratic alternative, the experts suddenly clam up.

Good grief, man. You can go read about this stuff on your own time. If you can't figure out the difference between a traditional Americna political party and a populist authoritarian movement, maybe you should go do some study and come back here when you are able to acknowledge the existence of the differences.

Good grief yourself, Kish. Telling someone to “go study” isn’t an argument. If the differences between a “traditional American political party” and a “populist authoritarian movement” are so obvious, you should be able to name a few without hiding behind hand-waving. JUST damned LIST THE DIFFERENCES FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS PROGRESSIVE HOLY AND PRAISEWORTHY AND SMOKE UP YOUR ASS.

You can dress it up in academic jargon all day long, but until you can actually show how the policies or actions materially diverge, you’re just repeating slogans. If “populist authoritarian” means “politician I don’t like,” then congratulations, you’ve invented a category as useful as “bad guys who get all the hot chicks.”

So let’s have it. Spell out the substantive differences, not the labels. Unless, obviously, you can’t. Line by line, item by item, tell me the topics where these political parties and authoritarian movements, LOL, would have the feds opt in or opt out?

[canpakes]

If the differences between a “traditional American political party” and a “populist authoritarian movement” are so obvious, you should be able to name a few without hiding behind hand-waving.

One indication could be how often the actions of one versus the other end up being contested in court, and on what grounds.

[Whiskey]

If the differences between a “traditional American political party” and a “populist authoritarian movement” are so obvious, you should be able to name a few without hiding behind hand-waving.

One indication could be how often the actions of one versus the other end up being contested in court, and on what grounds.

No, that is not even close to being an indication. In fact, there could be an inverse correlation.

It is simple really. Provide the examples. On what topics or issues, does one group ask the feds to opt in, and the other ask the feds to opt out?

I provided one - Abortion. The Trump administration would like the feds out. Got anything else? Anyone?

[Kishkumen]

Good grief yourself, Kish. Telling someone to “go study” isn’t an argument. If the differences between a “traditional American political party” and a “populist authoritarian movement” are so obvious, you should be able to name a few without hiding behind hand-waving. JUST damned LIST THE DIFFERENCES FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS PROGRESSIVE HOLY AND PRAISEWORTHY AND SMOKE UP YOUR ASS.

You can dress it up in academic jargon all day long, but until you can actually show how the policies or actions materially diverge, you’re just repeating slogans. If “populist authoritarian” means “politician I don’t like,” then congratulations, you’ve invented a category as useful as “bad guys who get all the hot chicks.”

So let’s have it. Spell out the substantive differences, not the labels. Unless, obviously, you can’t. Line by line, item by item, tell me the topics where these political parties and authoritarian movements, LOL, would have the feds opt in or opt out?

I am not effing arguing with you about settled matters, Whiskey. Your complaint is just dumb. If others want to waste their time arguing with you about basic stuff, they are welcome to do so. I am just not interested. I will point out that this is exactly what you are doing.

Whiskey: "I'm just asking questions here, maaaannnnn!"

[canpakes]

One indication could be how often the actions of one versus the other end up being contested in court, and on what grounds.

No, that is not even close to being an indication. In fact, there could be an inverse correlation.

It is simple really. Provide the examples. On what topics or issues, does one group ask the feds to opt in, and the other ask the feds to opt out?

I provided one - Abortion. The Trump administration would like the feds out. Got anything else? Anyone?

Abortion doesn’t work. No one forced anyone to have an abortion in the first place; the Federal government merely stated that citizens had the right to access.

Court actions can absolutely demonstrate an authoritarian issue depending upon the action contested.

You can start with this short list if you are unable to come up with your own examples:

1. Putting military on US soil

If there’s one Trump inclination that most concerned top military and defense officials in his first term, it might have been his desire to dispatch troops on US soil.

And Trump is increasingly making it a reality. He has not only deployed the guard in DC, but he deployed both the guard and the Marines to Los Angeles two months ago in another extraordinary way (given the lack of widespread violence).

Trump is also increasingly talking about ramping up these efforts. He’s spoken this week about also deploying active-duty military in DC and expanding his approach to other cities in a way that would militarize the US homeland like never before. And he’s suggested he can expand the effort in ways that appear to go beyond his legal authority, by declaring emergencies.

Those top officials from Trump’s first term worried about him politicizing the military, using it to target American citizens, and possibly even using it to hold on to power.

2. Tariffs

While the tariffs saga now feels like just a reality of our daily political life, it’s also a major power play.

After all, this is the president claiming emergency powers over a prerogative that the Constitution gives to Congress, and constantly shifting the terms in an effort to bargain with other countries. He’s in effect wielding an ever-changing level of taxation on American businesses and consumers.

The courts are still sorting through whether he’s exceeded his authority, with the US Court of International Trade initially ruling that he had. But perhaps more than any other issue, this is the one on which Trump has neutered Congress and run the country like an all-powerful executive.

Lawmakers have the power to rein him in. And Republicans traditionally don’t like tariffs. But the GOP-controlled Congress apparently wants no part of stopping their party’s standard bearer.

3. Investigations of his opponents

The Trump administration has already launched investigations or taken investigative steps against key figures in four high-profile efforts to scrutinize Trump: the Russia investigation, his first impeachment, the January 6, 2021, investigations and his personal criminal and civil cases.

The retributive nature of these efforts is only reinforced by the fact that Trump has personally pushed for many of these probes – a break with longstanding practice. Early in his term, he even signed an executive order explicitly calling for investigations of two critics.

It remains to be seen if any of these probes will amount to anything. The GOP’s attempts to impeach then-President Joe Biden never did, and we haven’t seen substantial evidence in these investigations.

But even if they don’t lead anywhere, a message will be sent to anyone else who might blow the whistle on or investigate Trump: If you scrutinize him, we’ll go after you. That’s a recipe for people keeping quiet.

4. MAGA-fying the government’s independent functions

While it might seem relatively small-bore, Trump’s maneuvers with BLS could have large-scale implications.

Again, it’s about the message it sends to others who might deliver bad news for Trump. And by nominating a loyalist in Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni for the new BLS commissioner, Trump is further eroding the expectation of independence from such officials. (Indeed, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick just this week called the notion of the independence of federal statistics “nonsense.”)

It’s a lot like Trump’s longstanding efforts to fire nonpartisan government officials and watchdogs, and to lean on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates by repeatedly threatening to fire or investigate him. This is quite simply something that presidents don’t do, because it adds the specter of political pressure in apolitical government functions.

Trump increasingly appears to have no qualms about looking like he has his thumbs on the scale – even in circumstances where that could seemingly come back to bite him, like BLS and the Fed.

5. Coercion of the media, universities and law firms

Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to use his bully pulpit and executive powers to demonstrate his dominance over these powerful institutions, with plenty of success.

These institutions, which have made remarkable concessions to his administration, seem to be making the calculation that it’s simply best not to be on Trump’s bad side. That can’t help but set new precedents that could impact other institutions and embolden him.

And the president has been happy to gloat.

“You see what we’re doing with the colleges, and they’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much. We appreciate it,’” he said at the White House in March. “Nobody can believe it, including law firms that have been so horrible, law firms that, nobody would believe this, just saying, ‘Where do I sign? Where do I sign?’”

6. Ignoring Congress/TikTok

Nothing encapsulates Trump’s disregard for the legislative branch – and its acquiescence – like TikTok.

Congress passed a bill with huge bipartisan majorities requiring the social media platform to divest from its Chinese ownership or be banned, with lawmakers citing urgent national security concerns. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that law. But Trump just keeps ignoring that and giving TikTok extensions, even as it’s pretty evident he doesn’t have the authority under the law.

There are practical reasons he’s been allowed to do that. Democrats, for example, don’t want to be the bad guys in following through on banning an app that is so popular. And it’s not clear who would have legal standing to sue Trump over this.

But just because those practical problems exist doesn’t mean this isn’t a power play. It’s a president effectively choosing to disregard the law, because he can. And he’s doing so despite those supposedly very urgent national security concerns about the Chinese government mining Americans’ sensitive data – concerns Trump once expressed himself.

Its also of-a-piece with Trump’s repeated efforts to simply disregard congressionally appropriated spending.

7. Skirting due process and the rule of law on deportations

Trump’s efforts to ramp up deportations have included a number of power grabs. Most notably, that’s taken the form of flouting due process and the rule of law.

Trump invoked what has traditionally been a wartime authority – the Alien Enemies Act – to try and quickly deport undocumented immigrants. His efforts have led to a number of wrongful deportations and attempted deportations that have been blocked by the courts. At one point, the administration clearly ignored a court order to turn around airplanes holding migrants.

Many of Trump’s allies have argued these migrants aren’t entitled to legal protections. And this has put Democrats in the politically uncomfortable position of standing up for those migrants’ rights.

Perhaps nothing has so called into question the authority of the rule of law and the courts, with plenty of poking and prodding by Trump and his administration to force the issue.

This has been one area where the courts have stepped up and seemed to check Trump. But that’s surely not the end of the power struggle.

Sourced from article: https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/13/politics ... p-analysis

[Kishkumen]

Popcorn at the ready for MAGA folk to argue that the sun and the moon are really the same heavenly body.