The slow revolt of Western electorates

[Rippounet]

20 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Thanks for the link. But this points to one of the disconnects, one of the places where the left/right divide makes no sense. To me a repeal of laws against hate speech is a step towards freedom. Hate speech laws are authoritarian, totalitarian, fascist. Any movement that repeals hate speech laws has my immediate support as a leftist.

If the principled support of the foundations of liberal democracy (equality before the law and freedom of speech) have become positions that are associated with the extreme right, then I will proudly don that mantle. I’m just surprised at the shift. (Except that authoritarianism has always been a problem of the left, to our eternal shame.) 

lol 
No, that's a specificity of the French legal system and one shouldn't make too much of it. You're focusing on the wrong thing though. The point was that the National Front does in fact want to change the French legal and political system, which many people say is necessary to be defined as "fascist."
Also, you have to see this as part of a great campaign against human rights, and to be more specific, against the rights of minorities and immigrants. A simple google gave me this article on the official National Front website linking the Human Rights League to Soros:
http://www.frontnational.com/2016/08/le-militantisme-de-la-ligue-des-droits-de-lhomme-est-il-finance-par-des-fonds-etrangers/

But you also raise an interesting point. And I hate to break it to you, but the left hasn't actually been very liberal in the 20th century. Which makes sense since in theory the left was about seeing social justice as more important than -at least some- individual freedoms. In general, people who value freedom above all else define themselves as right-wing or -in the US- as libertarian. Within the paradigm of 20th century politics, I'd say it makes perfect sense for the French socialist state to put constraints on freedom of speech in the name of equality and justice.

It's an inconvenient truth for both political sides, but freedom and equality tend to be mutually exclusive.

[Happy Ent]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Within the paradigm of 20th century politics, I'd say it makes perfect sense for the French socialist state to put constraints on freedom of speech in the name of equality and justice.

I agree with that description. But a principled rejection of social justice for reasons of liberal democracy is not a position of the extreme right. It is a position of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is not a right-wring position.

[Rippounet]

Just now, Happy Ent said:

I agree with that description. But a principled rejection of social justice for reasons of liberal democracy is not a position of the extreme right.

And I would agree with you on this one. It has often occurred to me that hate speech laws in France ought to be repealed (we're in the 21st century now). But the National Front is campaigning against them not in the name of liberal democracy, but because it is a xenophobic nationalist party that believes immigrants and Muslims have too many rights and protections under the current legal system, and that there should be a "national preference" for French-born citizens and French culture, instead of equality and tolerance for all.
That, I believe, is a far-right position.

[Iskaral Pust]

In the US, safe spaces, trigger warnings and the myriad related "protections" for delicate sensibilities are SJW censorship emerging from the liberal movement.  I am one of many liberals who are upset to see censorship and thought police take over, however fringe for now, but the fact is liberalism can descend into it's own version of McCarthyism just as much as conservatism. 

The problem with the left-right spectrum discussed earlier is that it doesn't really capture neoliberalism very well.  Classic left wing politics was about the proletariat, collectivism, socialism, protectionism and lauded the laborer for their contribution to society via labor.  One man's sweat is worth as much as any other's, ignoring the lottery of birth: opportunities, talent, whatever.  It expressed solidarity with the global proletariat and supported their rights, but didn't want to invite them to immigrate en masse nor export in large quantities.  Internationalism was never particularly left wing except to evangelize socialism.  

Neoliberalism seems to cherish cultural minorities for their own sake.  It's almost like a twisted form of white guilt and white savior complex run amok among the bourgeois class in coalition with their adopted most-vulnerable minorities, who must all be saved and favored with special treatment.  People are lauded for their identity as other rather than for their labor.  It doesn't look like much the traditional left wing except for the expectation that a big govt should provide.  The traditional left and neoliberalism were uncomfortable bedfellows for a while, as we saw in Hillary vs Obama in the 2008 primary (ironically Hillary is neoliberal too, but the traditional left identified with her in 2008) and the resistance to New Labor in the UK, but eventually there is the ugly question of whether the minorities are too favored and receiving preferential treatment ahead of the proletariat.  

[Rippounet]

@Iskaral Pust  We're talking about different things here though.

On the surface, identity politics seem similar from Western country to Western country. In actuality, they're not. Assuming we're still vaguely talking about Le Pen, the point I'm trying to make is that in the French context the National Front is fascist almost by definition.

You are correct to say censorship can easily come from the left. But the fact is, the French Revolution was in many ways a socialist revolution. It is much closer in spirit to the Russian Revolution of 1917 than to the American Revolution of 1776. It primarily targeted the aristocracy and the Catholic church and thus was always dismissive of some basic individual rights such as private property and freedom of religion. It was immediately followed by the Reign of Terror during which anyone speaking against the Republic would be swiflty executed (guillotined).

Which is why some of the things you say have little meaning in a French context. The same absence of a 1st amendment that allows for hate speech laws also bans any conspicuous religious symbol in the public sphere. According to the French Republican principles, the existence of minorities is not even acknowledged (the concept of "race" is not recognized in French law either). The system is binary: you are French or you are not, and if you are, you have the duty to obey all the laws of the Republic, including public secularism ("laïcité"). This is why minorities have never received preferential treatment here, and why France is regularly seen as islamophobic for banning head scarves, veils, or the hijab in general. In fact, some people in the US argue that such principles are the very reasons why French Muslims become radicalized!

This is turn, explains why the National Front is a genuine fascist organization. You cannot fight a preferential treatment that never existed in the first place. In the best case scenario it is a strongly xenophobic movement ; worst case scenario it is attacking principles that are at the very heart of French Republicanism. The fundamental problem is that the powers of the French state are such that you cannot replace the principles of our Republic with anything that would be less powerful. Assuming Le Pen did take power her principle of national preference would go against our constitution, which she would have to rewrite (hence why the National Front wants to reduce the powers of our "conseil constitutionnel" btw). The nationalist principles that she would have to put in place could only be viewed as fascist.

A different way to put it is that the National Front's "national preference" isn't about going back on left-wing policies like affirmative action. There is no such thing as affirmative action in France. The only way to put national preference in place is to treat members of ethnic and religious minorities as second-class citizens. Which is exactly what some people in the National Front want to do, though of course Le Pen has been very careful to avoid having this discourse in the past years (and which is why she excluded her father from the movement, since he kept speaking his mind on such things).

So you see, there was never any institutionalized white guilt or white savior complexe here. People were never lauded for their identity over their labour. And the French have always been suspicious of global neoliberalism ; until Sarkozy in 2007, even the right-wing parties were officially "gaullist" but certainly not neoliberal. Which is precisely why a movement like the National Front is terrifying. On the one hand it takes its roots in classic French nationalism ; on the other hand it seeks to replace it with something else entirely. It doesn't really fight against anything specific but fights for something: though it describes its "enemy" as radical Islam, radical Islam is pretty much already illegal in the country. Thus, any "fight" would entail the abolition of our current constitution and the instoration of a truly fascist French state.

Tl;dr: in the French context, Marine Le Pen is one scary bitch.

[Happy Ent]

I feel you’re close to explaining this, Rip, but I stil don’t get it. Please assume that I am intellectually curious, intellectually honest, but sceptical.

To convince me, you need to explain to my why FN is extreme right, or even fascist, using established definitions of extreme right or fascist. Telling me that FN is fascist by definition does not only fail to convince me, but it weakens your position (in the sense that it makes you come off as an unreliable source of information; your judgement is tainted by you calling MLP a “scary bitch”, because it shows your emotional investment.)

The closest you come to making an argument of the sort I am soliciting is this:

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

@Iskaral PustThe only way to put national preference in place is to treat members of ethnic and religious minorities as second-class citizens. Which is exactly what some people in the National Front want to do, though of course Le Pen has been very careful to avoid having this discourse in the past years (and which is why she excluded her father from the movement, since he kept speaking his mind on such things).

The first part, if true, would be exactly what I need to hear: that the FN misunderstands national preference (i.e., that nation shall favour its own citizens only, and similarly have requirements of its own citizens only) with ethno-nationalism. This would make FN racist, which is a position that I reject for various reasons and am happy to associate with the right (or even fascism).

But my understanding is that MLP has been the strongest force against exactly that position. I have been in complete agreement with whatever messages from MLP I’ve been able to follow (mainly  speeches subtitled into English). So this cannot can’t be an argument. I am eager to change my mind on this position, and it should be easy to convince me.

But I will no more associate the FN with a malicious description of their views (in particular, when they explicitly reject that view) than I will will associate feminist parties with SCUM-manifesto reading misandrists. Yes, there are misandrists in the feminist movement, but we make no progress if we evaluate feminism by their misandrists.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

To convince me, you need to explain to my why FN is extreme right, or even fascist, using established definitions of extreme right or fascist.

To be honest, if you need to be convinced, then nothing I can say will do so. We'd have to agree on what are the "established definitions" and I'd have to provide extensive analysis of Le Pen's program and speeches. Such an analysis would not be conclusive anyway. I read some of the interviews she gave abroad and her thoughts were extremely well articulated and consensual (I was impressd tbh), quite far from any openly fascist discourse, and slightly toned down too.
My perspective on her intentions is based on the history and structure of her party and things she has said in private which shouldn't have become public. Combined with her program (strong state, strong defense, strong justice, national preference, central industrial planification, legal and constitutional changes, educational reform... etc), there are too many red flags for me to see her as anything but dangerous. A program that pretends to comprehensively address all the ills of our society comes dangerously close to proposing some form of authoritarianism at least.

But anyway, the crux of the matter is trust. On the face of it, her program is terrific. Xenophobia aside, she has correctly identified many problems of French society and offers very French (i.e. socialist and/or nationalist) solutions to them. She doesn't really dwell too much on how she intends to find the money for all that, save perhaps by saying she wants a strong state to rein in finance and control its own monetary policy. If one was willing to give her the benefit of doubt, one might think that she is a great candidate and the best hope for the future of France!
But this would be ignoring history. The history of her party, that was founded by neofascists. And the history of Europe, where we've had other parties with programs strikingly similar to hers before. We all know what the fruits of "National-socialism" were. I see no reason to give it a second chance by trusting someone who is proposing such a program today. I mean, if we're open to dangerous experiments, might as well go for a third French empire. We'd have to start by conquering the Brits this time, obviously, and make certain we aren't foolish enough to invade Russia in winter ; I guess a surprise attack on the British Navy would be in order, before throwing a blitzkrieg on Germany through Belgium (since going through Belgium is something of a tradition in our common history) to get rid of most US bases in Europe ; once the Americans are out of the picture, a bit of nuclear blackmail should push Germany, Italy and Spain to surrender.
That is, if everything goes well. But after all, what could possibly go wrong? All we need to know is avoid the minor mistakes of the past, right?

[Jo498]

On 6.12.2016 at 1:56 PM, Happy Ent said:

OK, good answer. So “extreme right” in the sense of “rejection of internationalism”? Fair enough. The desire of the left for an government that is international but not necessarily democratic is one of the constants of political life, but not one that I (as a leftist) am particularly proud of.

(The rhetoric from the anti-EU parties seems to be grounded in democratic arguments of a constitutional nature, though. Arguments that I find perfectly valid. They seem to be a confirmation of the nation state as a political entity that is compatible with democracy; this argument – if presented honestly – is again very difficult to map to the left–right axis.)

I did not mean to say that rejection of internationalism is sufficient for extreme right (it is probably necessary). I think it is necessary for the Left although I agree that it has often been lip service (in a fashion the German social democrats already failed this when they supported the Kaiser (keine Parteien, nur noch Deutsche) at the beginning of WW1!)

The paradoxical situation many people and parties in continental Europe find themselves in is that virtually all parties, emphatically including most mainstream conservatives have been behind the European Union and often more emphatic internationalism but of course all important elections, many important decisions and, not least, feelings of home and identity have remained "national". But on the other hand it was also popular to blame EU institution for all kinds of failings (to distract from national failings...) so this was often an uneasy and dishonest balance.

And you are probably right that the populace was hardly ever asked whether they wanted the European unification project because no matter how you voted the government would usually be "pro-Europe". So now one is driven to unsavory and formerly fringe populist parties if one has any strong criticism wrt EU, free trade etc. because the mainstream parties do not offer a spectrum but are all (except for empty rhetorics) in the European boat (of course this does not at all prevent competition with tooth and claw, bringing to heel countries like Greece and so on).

As for the axes, people have introduced two dimensional plots with economic left/right on one and authoritarian/liberal on the other axis. I think this still misses some distinctions and one would probably need around 4 dimensions but this would become rather muddled. Something like the following, although they are not independent anyway.

1 central planning - laissez faire (economy)

2 socially progressive - traditionalist conservative

3 liberal - authoritarian (police state)

4 internationalist - nationalist/isolationist

E.g. libertarians would be (in the scheme above) 1 right, 2 either way, 3 left, 4 left. Social democrats would be 1 tending left, 2 tending left, 3 probably tending left, 4 middle/tending left. A traditionalist nationalist party would be 1 tending right, 2 right, 3 tending right, 4 right, a "catholic workers party" (yes, those existed) would be 1 tending left, 2 tending right, 3 tending right, 4 tending left and so on.

(Of course some these are still vague, e.g. is it necessary to be a monarchist to be a "real traditionalist", or is it more focused on social mores like gender roles etc.)

[Happy Ent]

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

We'd have to agree on what are the "established definitions" and I'd have to provide extensive analysis of Le Pen's program and speeches.

Yes, that is exactly what I would want. A link (in English or German) would be fine; I’ve searched for such a text for a long time. Many texts purport to be this, and I read them with honest interest, but it usually quickly becomes clear that they either deliberately misrepresent the party’s official stance, or use a definition of right-wing or fascism that I find useless.

[Rippounet]

14 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Yes, that is exactly what I would want. A link (in English or German) would be fine; I’ve searched for such a text for a long time. Many texts purport to be this, and I read them with honest interest, but it usually quickly becomes clear that they either deliberately misrepresent the party’s official stance, or use a definition of right-wing or fascism that I find useless.

You seem to have a professional interest in this, am I wrong?
This article analyses the National Front's ideological repackaging. In itself it doesn't say much, but it gives many relevant sources in its bibliography: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/6a3d620c-7826-4eec-8cb8-e9333892ef45.pdf
Apparently this article would be what you are looking for, but you'll have to pay for it:
http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/1/179.short
There's also been an analysis of the rhetoric: http://news.stanford.edu/2015/04/16/extremism-france-alduy-041615/
Lastly, mediapart published a point by point analysis of the National Front's program. It's in French and heavily biased, but if you ignore the conclusions at the end of each analysis it's rather pertinent: https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/dossier/france/fn-notre-contre-argumentaire

None of those will tell you much though. In the end, discourse is only discourse.

[Happy Ent]

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You seem to have a professional interest in this, am I wrong?

No. Totalitarianism is a hobby, one of the topics in which I consider myself widely read (historically, psychologically, philosophically, constitutionally, etc.) My only professional interest is, and only tangentially, are topics related to democracy in the digital society (such as voting, privacy, free speech) in my role as a computer science professor.

But with respect to totalitarianism, I’m trying to keep up with current trends in right wing thought (*). I’m following the public sphere in four or five countries, but France is always at the extreme of my bubble, so I’m somewhat handicapped in making up my own mind.

(Two things I’ve learned is that totalitarianism is very real, but also to not trust anybody, ever, in who they label as totalitarian.) 

 I’ve improved my French considerably over the last year (so now I can read Asterix), but it’s too hard to actually follow the French political sphere.

—

* I am absolutely not saying that totalitarianism is restricted to the right.

[Iskaral Pust]

5 hours ago, Jo498 said:

1 central planning - laissez faire (economy)

2 socially progressive - traditionalist conservative

3 liberal - authoritarian (police state)

4 internationalist - nationalist/isolationist

E.g. libertarians would be (in the scheme above) 1 right, 2 either way, 3 left, 4 left. Social democrats would be 1 tending left, 2 tending left, 3 probably tending left, 4 middle/tending left. A traditionalist nationalist party would be 1 tending right, 2 right, 3 tending right, 4 right, a "catholic workers party" (yes, those existed) would be 1 tending left, 2 tending right, 3 tending right, 4 tending left and so on.

This is a good post.  You could articulate the dimensions slightly differently but the idea is the old-fashioned left-right spectrum has insufficient nuance.  Trump is defined by authoritarianism and nationalist/isolationist.  He's all over the map on the other two dimensions, which were the ones that defined the outgoing neocons under Bush The Lesser only eight years ago.  People haven't just shifted preferences lately, they've shifted the dimensions about which they most care. 

Some of the authoritarian tilt around the world lately is partly a backlash against the perception of inconclusive politics by committee -- and the ECB/EU/IMF differs from obstructionism in Washington, but the reaction is similar -- and partly a perception of govt abdicating established law on immigration and being soft on civil disturbances.  Also strongman leaders tend to emerge when people feel the system is not listening to them. 

Each country is experiencing this differently but France is not that much different from the US and UK.  The main animus behind MLP is anger at a huge influx in recent decades of low education immigrants of a different culture, who have become a persistent and problematic sub-culture, including mass unemployment, govt dependence, riots and terrorism.  France's labor laws means that its immigrants don't depress wages much like in the US, but they drag more on govt budgets and generate more violence from riots and terrorism.  In America, the riots and benefit dependence come from a non-immigrant underclass, while the terrorism from immigrant muslims is thankfully less than France and about similar to lone nuts and the religious right wing.  So France's revolt is more specifically against muslims and therefore looks more clearly fascist, but the same stew of problems applies broadly.  

The first world proletariat is tired of losing out to the rise of the third world proletariat, and is especially unhappy when unwanted immigrants are welcomed by neoliberal elites as it puts that competition right in their face.  

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Each country is experiencing this differently but France is not that much different from the US and UK.  The main animus behind MLP is anger at a huge influx in recent decades of low education immigrants of a different culture, who have become a persistent and problematic sub-culture, including mass unemployment, govt dependence, riots and terrorism.  France's labor laws means that its immigrants don't depress wages much like in the US, but they drag more on govt budgets and generate more violence from riots and terrorism.  [...]  So France's revolt is more specifically against muslims and therefore looks more clearly fascist, but the same stew of problems applies broadly. 

Hmmm, yeah. Mass unemployment, riots, radical Islam and drug trafficking (I'm adding this one)... are problems linked with the youths in very poor suburban areas (the "cités") who generally are the French children and grandchildren of immigrants rather than immigrants themselves. Thus culture and religion don't exactly play the role that you would describe. In many ways the culture of the cités youths is closer to that of predominantly black urban neighborhoods in the US: it's mostly based on the cités themselves, often has little to do with their parents' cultures and is heavily influenced by drug and/or gang culture instead. Religion actually plays a rather minor role in the mix: the RG (intelligence service of the police) established that it had nothing to do with the -rare and small-scale- riots (five actual cases in the 21st century, four of which were linked to accusations of police brutality and/or discrimination) and it's estimated that there are around 15,000 radical Muslims (which may sound like a lot, but only represents around 0,3% of French Muslims), a few thousands of which are considered a security risk.
So... Careful with the oversimplifications and shortcuts. Though I know this was not your intention the picture you describe is very close to that which tends to be painted by the National Front and its supporters. Not all predominantly Muslim neighborhoods are cités though (very very far from it), and I would even argue that there are some cités that are not predominantly Muslim. Generally speaking, while there certainly are problems linked with immigration and cultural differences, they are heavily distorted and vastly blown out of proportion by the National Front for obvious electoral reasons.
So... while parallels may be drawn, they have more to do with the way the right exploits these issues than with the issues themselves, which are essentially unemployment and socio-economic segregation throughout the country. In fact, because the National Front has steadily gained votes in the last decades, successive governments have drastically cut down on it already: official numbers are of 200,000 immigrants a year for 0,3% of the population (a very low percentage for such a developed nation), more than half of which come from European countries (57% come from Portugal, Britain, Spain, Germany or Italy) and 63% of which have at least completed high school (many quickly enroll in university since it is free). In a nutshell, immigration is hardly a problem ; the main problem is the massive unemployment of the children of former immigrants combined with the rising xenophobia and islamophobia, especially in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks.

[Iskaral Pust]

I'm not saying that Islam is the root cause, I'm saying that the North African Muslim immigrant community is a readily identifiable "other" sub-culture that has drawn the resentment of the native proletariat and become a wedge issue for the rise of authoritarian nativism.  The identifying characteristic of the group was not intended as a blame factor. 

[Rippounet]

17 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I'm not saying that Islam is the root cause, I'm saying that the North African Muslim immigrant community is a readily identifiable "other" sub-culture that has drawn the resentment of the native proletariat and become a wedge issue for the rise of authoritarian nativism.  The identifying characteristic of the group was not intended as a blame factor. 

Ok, thanks for the clarification and sorry for splitting hairs. Well put then, this assertion is hard to disprove.

[Jo498]

12 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

1 central planning - laissez faire (economy)

2 socially progressive - traditionalist conservative

3 liberal - authoritarian (police state)

4 internationalist - nationalist/isolationist

12 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

This is a good post.  You could articulate the dimensions slightly differently but the idea is the old-fashioned left-right spectrum has insufficient nuance.  Trump is defined by authoritarianism and nationalist/isolationist.  He's all over the map on the other two dimensions, which were the ones that defined the outgoing neocons under Bush The Lesser only eight years ago.  People haven't just shifted preferences lately, they've shifted the dimensions about which they most care. 

Some of the authoritarian tilt around the world lately is partly a backlash against the perception of inconclusive politics by committee -- and the ECB/EU/IMF differs from obstructionism in Washington, but the reaction is similar -- and partly a perception of govt abdicating established law on immigration and being soft on civil disturbances.  Also strongman leaders tend to emerge when people feel the system is not listening to them.

Yes, the shift in focus in the US since the early 2000s is interesting, I had not even thought about that. Of course "authoritarian" does even with today's extremist parties usually not mean a fully fledged police state (and many parties are onboard with electronic surveillance etc.) but more like "tough on crime", "zero tolerance", "law and order". As far as I can see the current right wing parties in Europe can also be all over the place in the first two dimensions. Some, like in Poland, are traditionalist conservative, others like Wilders' party in the Netherlands are socially liberal and focus on the illiberal aspects of Islam (gender roles etc. that are shared to some extent by traditionalists) as a main enemy. Other cases (like the AfD) are not so clear but to me it seems fairly obvious that because most mainstream conservatives have abolished traditionalism/social conservatism there is a "hole to be filled" because many, especially older people are still fairly conservative wrt gender roles, sexual minorities etc. (These things differ wildly among countries, e.g. abortion does not seem to be an important topic in Germany now, except for some christian groups that are politically largely irrelevant whereas euthanasia of terminally ill people is and there seems a broad consensus that Germany should not liberalize this like Switzerland or Belgium.)

In economics the populists also seem anything but consistent. E.g. the AfD has (although some of them have left, so it has become weaker) a rather libertarian wing. They will usually claim they will both lower taxes as well as improve the plight of the unemployed, they are for preferential treatment of Germans and "Euroskeptic" but they not against free trade in general

[Happy Ent]

Many good comments above, please keep it up.

One detail I’d like to unpack concerns the term authoritarian.

See, I consider myself to be far on the left on most issues, except for my strong, principled rejection of authoritarianism.

Another way of saying this: despite my political priors, there are a bunch of issues on which I am well-aligned with the “new parties” in Europe, and probably even with the Trump campaign, and these issues explicitly include the principled defence of non-authoriatarian thought; in particular surrounding freedom of speech. In particular, the incredibly important issue of freedom of speech is currently monopolised by people like Le Pen or (even more clearly) Geert Wilders. Their rhetoric on these issues resonates extremely well with me, it is one of the issues where I find myself in complete alignment with the “new right,” to the point of being emotionally invested and enthused. 

There are a bunch of related topics (including the principled rejection of ideas such as affirmative action, identity politics, thought policing, censorship, speech codes) that strongly resonate with me. On these issues, the “new right” is utterly non-authoritarian. According to my intuition, and anecdotal evidence from web surfing and talking to youngsters in my childrens’ generation, this non-authoritarianism is enough for many single-issue voters. (For instances, all Trump supporters that I actually know are in the Trump camp because of this. The Milo-demographic is a good example to think of.) So it stands to reason that a significant part of the supporters of the “new right” vote for them for anti-authoritarian reasons.

In this analysis (which may be mistaken), the authoritarianism of (say) Trump is an aspect of the candidate that is unwelcome to a large part of his supporters. (Just like his utter incompetence, or his lack of morals.) They vote for Trump in spite of… (just like many Clinton supporters voted for her in spite of …) 

[Jo498]

This shows that my "authoritarian" category above is too broad. But I have no idea how to split it to accomodate that the "new right" could be strongly against "authoritarian" regulations like "PC" restrictions of free speech, affirmative action etc. but be in favor of "zero tolerance", "war on crime", maybe "war on drugs". Because the new rightists also have libertarian elements they can of course sometimes be in favor of liberalization of drugs. So 2 and 3 are maybe still too broad or even muddled in some respects. Or maybe it is the interaction of 2 and 3. One can be socially progressive but reject a lot of official "policing" in such matter. One can be (to some extent) traditionally conservative but hold that this should not be imposed by the government but families and communities should "enforce" traditionalist mores.

Problems here are instability/defecting and the monopoly of power. A traditionalist knows that man is a social animal and that one needs a certain size of community to keep the traditional mores in place. So he ideally wants the state to enforce them. (Or maybe better: his ideal is that they would be enforced locally by non-violent force, basically the power of tradition and social shaming and ostracizing of deviants. But in doubt, call in the power of the state.) But of course he is in trouble if the official policies that are going to be enforced (e.g. obligatory public schooling, gay marriage etc.) are not the ones he favors. So in this case he wants to be left alone in his Amish village (e.g.) and prefers a "weak state". A similar thing applies to some progressives: Often their positions are considered "fringe" by either a majority or a significant minority and need the power of the state to be enforced against some families or communities who beg to differ. (I think progressives are more consistent because they usually prefer the "strong state" whereas traditionalists tend to prefer the weakt state but seem opportunistically oscillating depending on whether the state shares there values and mores.)

I admit that I am myself not consistent and unsure in many cases. E.g. in Germany homeschooling is basically illegal and there have been cases (usually christian fundamentalists) that went to court or where the families emigrated in the end. (There seem also cases when local authorities tolerated some kind of homeschooling.) I am on the fence here. On the one hand, I see all kinds of abuse possible if parents are allowed to homeschool. On the other hand I recognize the intrusion of the state into something that could be reasonably conceived as business of the family.

[Iskaral Pust]

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

One detail I’d like to unpack concerns the term authoritarian.

It is an interesting dichotomy.  Trump and his ilk are clearly authoritarian in their preference for a strong leader, promoting violence at their rallies, strong support for law enforcement, threatening political and media opposition with improsonment, and  seeking to project power and dominance internationally.  

But they are conversely fighting against their perception of thought police enforcing an ultra PC agenda.  But the liberal thought police is not a literal police.  This is not the Stazi or the KGB.  The ultra PC crowd enforces their view through soft power like crowd shaming, education, civil protest, law suits, media and entertainment culture -- all avowed enemies of authoritarians who don't like this soft power of the weak. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Isk,

I just wonder if they care about free speech for anybody but white people. The outrage at Colin Kaepernick or BLM suggests to me that many of them do not.