I use the label "authoritarian" and "authoritarianism" frequently, but unfortunately, have not attempted to define the term. Let me start the attempt with the following:
My use of the term authoritarian is based at least in part on Erich Fromm’s famous book, Escape from Freedom.
“Authoritarianism: Fromm characterises the authoritarian personality as containing a sadist element and a masochist element. The authoritarian wishes to gain control over other people in a bid to impose some kind of order on the world, they also wish to submit to the control of some superior force which may come in the guise of a person or an abstract idea.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fear_of_Freedom
Most of us can accept the need from some degree of social control imposed by government. However, government is limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Too many on both the left and the right have the idea that it is necessary to control people to impose order, in spite of constitutional rights. The Left is often obsessed with gun control and eliminating poverty by radically and forcibly reallocating income and property. Hate speech must be crushed in spite of the fact that it is constitutionally protected. The Right is often obsessed with government enforcement conservative Christian morality, laissez-faire capitalism and a strong government. Criticisms of religion and patriotism must be stomped out in spite of that fact that they are protected by the First Amendment. Of course, neither group wants the controls to be aimed at themselves. That is the great hypocrisy from which both sides suffer.
For some on the left, the person is often Marx and the abstract idea has evolved into democratic socialism. The person may be Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Juan/Eva person, Che Guevara or Mao Tse-Tung or Barak Obama. The abstract idea for some may be total equality in all dimensions of life. This would require, a totalitarian government. On the right of course, that person could be Adolph Hitler (although one could argue that Hitler's domestic economics were Socialist) and the Neo-Nazis. All of these people have both good and bad ideas. Although obviously for many the bad ideas greatly outweighed any of their good ideas. The problem emerges when people follow these leaders slavishly and unthinkingly. They give up thinking for themselves in an open but critical fashion. The forget that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The basic problem is that many on both sides view individual rights they fear and dislike as dispensable. The ends justify the means (sacrificing the individual). Obviously, there are people, theorists and politicians who are exceptions, but hopefully you get the picture of what I am trying to say.
Authoritarianism can be both Left- and Right-Wing. Academia, which is dominated by the left, has focused primarily on it’s enemies on the right. IMHO, freedom and constitutional rights have enemies on both sides of the political spectrum.
Prof. Kessler,
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your association of the term "libertarianism" with the idea of "the right", since by definition "libertarianism" is neither "right" nor "left".
The word "libertarian" is the functional antonym to the word "authoritarian".
Please see:
http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/libergraph.htm
Bennett:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I did not mean to label libertarianism either authoritarian or right-wing.
The mention of Ayn Rand was not as an example of authoritarianism or right-wing politics but of a writer who is slavishly followed by some. Those folks are,of course sometimes in the libertarian movement. (Some may also be in the anarcho-capitalist movement, to which I do not subscribe) Individual thought and critique should never be allowed to diminish by slavish adherence to any writer or philosophy. That is why I label myself a "cautious" libertarian. I apologize for not making that clear and have edited the post. Thanks again and my apologies. I need to stay off the blog during the final exam and grading period as time is too short for making and editing long posts. I hope you will continue to post. I look forward to your reply.
Correct me if I'm wrong professor, but my understanding of your message is that there are extremes in libertarian thought. For example, bleeding heart liberals place total trust in big all powerful government for their ordered redistributive utopian society. The draw back of course is the loss of individual rights and initiative. Libertarian anarchist over correct this fallacy by wanting to abolish government altogether. Their mantra is privatization of every aspect of society. Peoples security and welfare can be satisfied entirely through an absolute free market economy. This is nothing more than a survival of the fittest mindset. Unknown to these self-described anarchist is that they'd be the first to succumb in such a monopolized world. Both extremes are based on a naivety that ignores the realities of human nature. A nursing concept that Bennett and I are familiar with is homeostasis, which is a balanced healthy functional system. Our country's founders understood this basic paradigm as it applied to the interrelationship between natural individual rights, local communities and government rule. Sadly, social progressives on both sides of the political and judicial aisle have compromised and perverted our inherited framework of federalism's limited power and authority. Although I don't agree with the Tenth Amendment Center's push toward confederation, at least they're trying to counter today's continued national overreach into states' domestic affairs. Their correct intention is to return our system of multiple sovereigns back to a healthy balance. I revere the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights as being the keystone to America's limited system of government. It's worth defending in the voting booth and hostile battle field.
ReplyDeleteClarification: "Libertarian anarchist" was used in reference to Anarcho-capitalism. Happy birthday to the ratified Bill of Rights, December 15, 1791.
ReplyDelete44: Thanks for both posts. Although I have now edited the post, I think you got the original meaning of what I was trying to say. Slavish adherence to any theory or theorist gets in the way or independent and critical thinking. Every philosophy has its extremes and extremists. Although I am comfortable with general libertarian theory, I consider myself a "cautious" libertarian rather than a strident one. I think that we both agree that with regard to the Consitution, both federalism and the Bill of Rights were intended to keep the federal government from grabbing unlimited powers.
ReplyDelete