|
Series DD Funding posted:Care to name any socialist/communist governments that didn't become extremely authoritarian? Job Truniht posted:Care to name ones that weren't Stalinist or weren't under the influence of the USSR? Is anyone else going to try at this or are we beyond this "truth is in the middle" and "merit for the moderates" bullshit? Kerala. Now can we please nip this in the bud? As for the topic at hand, the theory advanced by Prester John seems consistent enough, though that doesn't mean that it's true. I'd be wary of generalizing too much beyond US religious rightwing authoritarians without some further supporting arguments to extend its applicability, especially if it is mainly based on personal experience.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Yeah, Ted Cruz doesn't have to be an Authoritarian himself, but he has to act like one or his base would turn on him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:In what sense is this true? Do you think that Ted Cruz needs to trigger RNCEs or his base would turn on him? Also if Authoritarians are his base, then it seems like their influence is not disproportionate. I think that Ted Cruz has to act like a reactionary shitlord (which includes grandstanding and whipping his base into a frenzy of hate and fear) or he would immediately be labeled a RINO and a sellout by his supporters and almost certainly lose his seat next time he's up for a primary. This holds whether he is an Authoritarian or a self-interested rear end in a top hat. As for your second claim, you're deliberately misunderstanding things here. Ted Cruz and his ilk have a disproportionate influence because they're not willing to compromise and would rather sink the ship instead. This means that the so-called moderates of the GOP have to give them concessions, because they sure as hell are self-interested assholes and want to stay in power at all costs. Throwing assholes like Cruz a bone is the price they have to pay for keeping the GOP together.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, Ted Cruz has disproportionate control of the GOP, that's tenable, but unless we establish Ted Cruz is an Authoritarian this seems to create problems with the "Authoritarians have disproportionate control" thing. Not really, since Ted Cruz is in turn controlled by his base. As you agreed to, he has to act the way he does. This means that if his base is made up of Authoritarians and they in turn send people like Cruz to Congress and people like Cruz drag the moderates towards the positions that they have to champion, the Authoritarians do wield disproportionate power. This actually holds up really well if we accept the premises of PJ:s argument.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:To get to here, we need to decide that his base is made up of Authoritarians, when we've explicitly said that Authoritarians are uncommon. This rhetoric is making it really obvious that "Authoritarian" is a stand in for "Republican". Now you're arguing a different point altogether. We were discussing whether the behaviour of Cruz is consistent with PJ:s theory or not. Whether Cruz's base is properly categorized as Authoritarians or not is a different question altogether. Also everybody here has been saying that Cruz et al have been dragging the more moderate Republicans towards their positions, which is kinda impossible to do if the terms "Authoritarian" and "Republican" are interchangeable. So if you would stop making dumb poo poo up it'd be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 00:33
|
|