It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The GOPs Age of Authoritarianism Has Only Begun - New York Magazine

page: 12
124
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: Annee

considering most laws those few state legislatures are pushing are laws that were previously on the books or social norms now codified.
Can you provide examples of extreme authoritarian laws by social conservatives?


My intent was to make ONE point. Outsiders do not really comprehend the power of the Political Christian Right in America.

I had no intention to go into an in-depth discussion. (there are existing threads on that)

Thread subject: The GOPs Age of Authoritarianism Has Only Begun

The GOP is the Political Christian Right.









I can understand why you don't want an in depth discussion because you gave your one example and it is an example of a victory against authoritarianism. Bravo to the Political Christian Right. (or the Supreme Court actually)

This political Christian right, apparently also now synonymous with the GOP, must be really good at hiding their great oppression and authoritarianism because it seems that not only do outsiders not undertand it, but insiders can't even explain it. Go figure.


edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Perhaps a general definition is in order ...

Authoritarianism, as used generally and specifically in the OP, is basically a preference for the strong power (authority) of the government over the rights of the individual. Of course, something of a paradox arises in America because our Constitution (the creating document of our system of government) focuses on certain rights of individuals against government intervention.

Perhaps we should call that form "neutral authoritarianism."

The power of the State directed at the equal rights and general welfare of the individuals comprising a population?



edit on 2-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

My intent was to make ONE point. Outsiders do not really comprehend the power of the Political Christian Right in America.


The best way to get this through skulls is to remind them to swap out a word in the religious-based, god-drenched excuses a politician makes for or against a law/proposal.

Swap God for Allah and see how you'd fricking feel then. If that doesn't illuminate a clear hard right religious influence,in some cases a la Christian Sharia, then nothing does and it's not anyone's fault but theirs for missing the forest in front of them.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Actually, at best, it is the victory of one authoritarian regime over another.

The law requires that health care plans provide for specific healthcare needs of individuals. (Authoritarianism directed at the general well-being of all citizens.) The decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby established an even greater "legal fiction of personhood" for corporations, thus further empowering an element of a hierarchical structure (authoritarian in nature) over the rights (under the law) of individuals based on a new grant of legal rights to the corporate "entity."

Pure authoritarianism.
edit on 2-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Actually, at best, it is the victory of one authoritarian regime over another.

The law requires that health care plans provide for specific healthcare needs of individuals. (Authoritarianism directed at the general well-being of all citizens.) The decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby established an even greater "legal fiction of personhood" for corporations, thus further empowering an element of a hierarchical structure (authoritarian in nature) over the rights (under the law) of individuals based on a new grant of legal rights to the corporate "entity."

Pure authoritarianism.


There is no possible scenario where a decision to refuse to force someone to do something can be described as authoritarian. It matters not how you try to explain the link, it's impossible. Inverting reality to that extreme is not going to wash.

One group tried to force another group to do something. The Supreme Court said no, you can't force someone (or a corporation) to do what you want in this case.

Pretty simple. In this case an authoritarian law imposed by the Democrats was struck down.
edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You're simply restating the facts to reflect your own belief.

The ACA requires insurance plans to provide certain health-related items to individuals.

(Yes, that is an "authoritarian" use of State authority designed to benefit every citizen (general welfare.)

In a sense, then, those health-related items become "the rights" of individuals to expect from their healthcare plan.

The decision in Burwell set up a new artificial class of "rights" for a legal entity (a corporation) and set those rights over the rights established in the ACA.

Thus, as I said, the decision is the accession of one authoritarian regime (system) over another.

The ACA evolved to its final form as the joint action of three Democrats and three Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats gave away single-payer in favor of the individual mandate and the healthcare exchanges (Republican ideas) for Republican support of the bill, and then, to a person, the Republicans backed out of their agreements.

The worst parts of the ACA are Republican in origin; this can be argued, but it is clear historical fact.
edit on 2-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You're simply restating the facts to reflect your own belief.

The ACA requires insurance plans to provide certain health-related items to individuals.

(Yes, that is an authoritarian use of State authority designed to benefit every citizen.)

In a sense, then, those health-related items become "the rights" of individuals to expect from their healthcare plan.

The decision in Burwell set up a new artificial class of "rights" for a legal entity (a corporation) and set those rights over the rights established in the ACA.

Thus, as I said, the decision is the accession of one authoritarian regime (system) over another.


No, I am stating cold hard facts. No opinion involved or needed.

The govt. wanted to force corporations to include specific contraception in their healthcare plan.
The Supreme Court came down in favour of the corporation and the govt's authoritarian law was quashed.

Your reasoning is no different to saying that a court ruling that women can vote is an example of authoritarianism because an existing law prohibits women from voting and the court decision would be an example of "accession of one authoritarian regime (system) over another".

In one swoop of reasoning you just made every decision in law where something changes "authoritarian" and completely drifted away from the premise of your own OP.

If this is really an example of the type of dangerous GOP authoritarianism 'just getting started' that you intended, then you are not really making much of a case.
edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, you are stating your interpretation of certain facts. There's a difference.

Fact: The ACA requires all health care plans to include certain items and treatments deemed critical to continued health.

Another Fact: This law was not directed at any certain group, but at ALL providers of health care plans and coverage.

Therefore, you are mistaken, it isn't a law directed at a corporation, but at establishing standards for health care coverage.

Hobby Lobby was awarded a new, unprecedented level of corporate entity "rights" with the application of the right of religious freedom to a corporation.

A corporation is a special case of legal fiction ... corporations act as "entities" in some cases, but have never until recent SCOTUS decisions by the Conservative majority have ruled that for corporations "money is speech" and "corporations can have religious beliefs," (both looking to expand the First Amendment protections for individual PERSONS to corporate FICTIONS) would any corporation have a chance to overcome an individual person's rights by claiming religious conflict over "beliefs."

So, again, the reality of Burwell is that a law establishing a new type of individual right (benefiting all citizens) was compromised by the decision that corporations themselves now have "religious freedom rights."

Thus, again, it is a matter of one form of authoritarianism (based on more rights for corporations) succeeding over another (granting more rights to individuals).
edit on 2-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

No, you are stating your interpretation of certain facts. There's a difference.

Fact: The ACA requires all health care plans to include certain items and treatments deemed critical to continued health.

Another Fact: This law was not directed at any certain group, but at ALL providers of health care plans and coverage.

Therefore, you are mistaken, it isn't a law directed at a corporation, but at establishing standards for health care coverage.

Hobby Lobby was awarded a new, unprecedented level of corporate entity "rights" with the application of the right of religious freedom to a corporation.

A corporation is a special case of legal fiction ... corporations act as "entities" in some cases, but have never (until recent SCOTUS decisions by the Conservative majority) have ruled that for corporations "money is speech" and "corporations can have religious beliefs" (both looking to expand the First Amendment to corporate fictions.

So, again, the reality of Burwell is that a law establishing a new type of individual right (benefiting all citizens) was compromised by the decision that corporations themselves now have "religious freedom rights."

Thus, again, it is a matter of one form of authoritarianism (based on more rights for corporations) succeeding over another (granting more rights to individuals).


The facts remain exactly the same.
A corporation was awarded the right not to provide specific contraceptives as part of it's health care plan.
The Supreme Court ruled in their favour.

Your reasoning remains that the Supreme Court making a decision that overturns an existing law is authoritarian. If you believe that, then the USA has always been authoritarian and there is nothing to worry about, in fact the Supreme Court have made many wonderful 'authoritarian' decisions that have greatly benefited humanity


I remain of the view that this was a decision that ruled in the favour of a company that did not want to be forced to do something they did not want to do, and thus a great victory over the authoritarianism of the Democrat govt. Freedom of religion trumped authoritarianism and no one ended up being forced to do anything.

I rather think the premise of the OP is little to do with this example, in truth, but as yet is the only example of the dangerous "authoritarianism" that you seem worried by.

edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No my reasoning is quite clear:

Certain rights were created for individuals by the ACA.

A case was brought arguing that corporations have religious rights, and thus, could be exempt from laws that contravene those religious beliefs.

This was successful because one of three co-equal branches of government created a stronger set of rights (via it's power to interpret the Constitution) than had been created by act of Congress (via its right to create laws promoting the general welfare).

Thus, no matter how many times you try to spin it, Burwell is a case of one authoritarian regime overcoming another with a net result that the rights of the few (corporations) were deemed superior to the rights of the many (the American population.)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
You should check this author out.
It perfectly describes the Wrong Wings failed attempt to "retake" America.
By failed you need only just look at the carnival barker buffoon that is their standard bearer.



Tula Connell is author of Conservative Counterrevolution: Challenging Liberalism in 1950s





The rightward political shift is no accident. Since the end of World War II, far-right conservatives and libertarians have patiently laid the groundwork for a national climate receptive to their ideals of weak government and a strong corporate presence. In the 1950s, a time when Congress had recently made affordable housing the law of the land, when expansion of Social Security and creation of federally-funded health care were on the table, and when unionized workers made up a third of the U.S. workforce, the conservative agenda appeared moribund. Yet just beneath the surface of a seemingly ever-expanding social welfare state, far-right conservatives and libertarians were strategizing what some of them called a “50-year project” to take the country back.

www.rawstory.com...

K~



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The authoritarianism that I am "worried by" (a point totally fabricated by you, as I am not worried and have not stated that I am.) or more accurately bringing focus to here is the growing trend among greater and greater portions of the US population (and by extension, the world population) to believe that government (in the special case of this discussion, a theoretical President Trump) has the authority (welcomed by many) to act AGAINST the long-established rights of individuals both citizens of the US and foreign nationals who come to this country with one goal in mind: to remove them.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

No my reasoning is quite clear:

Certain rights were created for individuals by the ACA.

A case was brought arguing that corporations have religious rights, and thus, could be exempt from laws that contravene those religious beliefs.

This was successful because one of three co-equal branches of government created a stronger set of rights (via it's power to interpret the Constitution) than had been created by act of Congress (via its right to create laws promoting the general welfare).

Thus, no matter how many times you try to spin it, Burwell is a case of one authoritarian regime overcoming another with a net result that the rights of the few (corporations) were deemed superior to the rights of the many (the American population.)



Your reasoning is very clear, I agree.

You think a law being struck down is an act of authoritarianism. If that is your bar for describing 'authoritarianism then, like I said, you have nothing to worry about.

The decision to implement the law in the first place was an example of the govt. deciding what the rights of the many would be and passing it through law and in turn over riding the freedom of religion. So that law was overturned in this case.

I disagree that you have described authoritarianism in any way shape or form.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

A branch of government using its power to overcome the rights of citizens (for whatever goal but particularly in favor of establishing new "rights" for a legal entity) is indeed authoritarian.

That's the definition of the word.


edit on 2-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Annee

My intent was to make ONE point. Outsiders do not really comprehend the power of the Political Christian Right in America.


The best way to get this through skulls is to remind them to swap out a word in the religious-based, god-drenched excuses a politician makes for or against a law/proposal.

Swap God for Allah and see how you'd fricking feel then. If that doesn't illuminate a clear hard right religious influence,in some cases a la Christian Sharia, then nothing does and it's not anyone's fault but theirs for missing the forest in front of them.


LOL, good point.

I simply will not be bullied into hi-jacking Gryphon's thread.

There are plenty of threads discussing dominance of Christianity in America.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The authoritarianism that I am "worried by" (a point totally fabricated by you, as I am not worried and have not stated that I am.) or more accurately bringing focus to here is the growing trend among greater and greater portions of the US population (and by extension, the world population) to believe that government (in the special case of this discussion, a theoretical President Trump) has the authority (welcomed by many) to act AGAINST the long-established rights of individuals both citizens of the US and foreign nationals who come to this country with one goal in mind: to remove them.




Is there any evidence of a growing population, and specifically within the GOP, wanting to remove the rights US citizens and foreign nationals afforded them by the constitution and Bill of Rights?


edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

A branch of government using its power to overcome the rights of citizens (for whatever goal but particularly in favor of establishing new "rights" for a legal entity) is indeed authoritarian.

That's the definition of the word.



Really? You think that is the premise of the article in your own OP? If this is what you meant then, congrats, you just created a thread about the US system of govt.


I had assumed from the article, this was about political authoritarianism.
Here is one description:


Athoritarianism : principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various competitors in elections. The freedom to create opposition political parties or other alternative political groupings with which to compete for power with the ruling group is either limited or nonexistent in authoritarian regimes.


If this is at the level of a Supreme Court decision on a specific contraceptive drug's inclusion in a health care plan, then I can see why you guys on the left think the GOP is so dangerous.

edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The authoritarianism that I am "worried by" (a point totally fabricated by you, as I am not worried and have not stated that I am.) or more accurately bringing focus to here is the growing trend among greater and greater portions of the US population (and by extension, the world population) to believe that government (in the special case of this discussion, a theoretical President Trump) has the authority (welcomed by many) to act AGAINST the long-established rights of individuals both citizens of the US and foreign nationals who come to this country with one goal in mind: to remove them.




Is there any evidence of a growing population, and specifically within the GOP, wanting to remove the rights US citizens and foreign nationals afforded them by the constitution and Bill of Rights?



NOW THERE is an excellent question! and is exactly what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

Some of the elements that I've mentioned are:

1. Contravening the First Amendment to target the religious beliefs of individuals in order to exclude them from entry into this country and/or from immigration and/or from naturalization.

2. A stated desire to increase the size and power of the INS (or similar government department) a thousand-fold to "immediately" begin the identification and removal of 12 - 15 million individuals.

There's two to chew on. I'm going to be away for a few hours.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

" To me, any politician and all politics is in some way more or less authoritarian (usually more). "


So in your Opinion , you would be OK with a National Socialist Government in America ?



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Annee

My intent was to make ONE point. Outsiders do not really comprehend the power of the Political Christian Right in America.


The best way to get this through skulls is to remind them to swap out a word in the religious-based, god-drenched excuses a politician makes for or against a law/proposal.

Swap God for Allah and see how you'd fricking feel then. If that doesn't illuminate a clear hard right religious influence,in some cases a la Christian Sharia, then nothing does and it's not anyone's fault but theirs for missing the forest in front of them.


LOL, good point.

I simply will not be bullied into hi-jacking Gryphon's thread.

There are plenty of threads discussing dominance of Christianity in America.


Don't worry, it's quite aligned to the topic. You yourself said the GOP = Political Christian Right.
The thread is : The GOPs Age of Authoritarianism Has Only Begun

I was hoping for some insight into how the Christians had overtaken the GOP to cause this great threat to America and turn it into an authoritarian regime.




top topics



 
124
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join