A note on power process in authoritarian politics

[solarbird]

I mentioned this elsewhere a few days ago, but I'll remind people about it here too: a key step in the consolidation of power in an authoritarian system (of any form) is the purge of your supporters once you attain a power goal. Make no mistake: once you secure the power, you are specifically purging the people who helped you achieve it. This is by design.

This purge may be committed in the name of corruption, it may be committed in the name of ideology, or there may be some other reason - how you select doesn't even really matter, as long as you target the most potentially independent members of your base, the ones who will object, the ones who will not put loyalty before principle. This is due to the necessity of informing and/or reminding the remainder that they are dependent upon you, not the other way around, and that without your support, they are nothing. It also removes potential future obstacles.

In this sort of culturally-republican-ish environment, and in this case, that means the instant marginalisation of ideas, regardless of merit and/or reality and/or history (c.f. the Democratic Party leadership, Olbermann, et al). In a more openly authoritarian system, it of course means far worse. Fortunately we are not there yet, various GOP rank-and-file desires to the contrary.

It is important to note that I do not suggest here that Senator Obama's actions are a particularly bad or violent example of this phenomenon. This is also not to suggest that there are no differences between the two candidates of the authoritarian establishment; there are, and they are mostly domestic, except for the issue of Supreme Court justices, which could offer the last possibility of resistance. (C.f. the 5-4 vote to retain habeas corpus.) This is also not a call to change your opinions about any token vote you might cast this November, except insofar as the election of an "opposition" party in support of the same things as the "outgoing" party casts these policies more firmly into stone. I instead remind the readers of this stage of power because this is the reality of politics in an authoritarian system; this is simply how that game is played. I suggest that the Obamaniacs take their lessons from this, and be happy that at least they'll live to fight again another day.

I, of course, also suggest that they form a new party, or take over and repurpose an existing national small one; I do not believe the Democratic Party can be salvaged, as I've said many times before. As for the reformers - they're done, certainly, for this act. See that bus, that one on their necks? That's for them. If they realise that quickly, then perhaps they might salvage something.

If you are in that opposition, you'll need to be ready for the next opportunity for turnover rather than the current one, because the Democratic Party plan is now moving into action: to embrace and extend the soft authoritarian system that Chief Executive Bush expanded so dramatically, and which, frankly, I think most Americans have at least been convinced they want. They wish to embrace and extend the lawless Presidency, to preserve the illusion of power in the legislature without the reality, to have control over those absolute powers via the Executive, and, of course, to peddle a use of these powers with different rhetoric and with perhaps a modicum more intelligence as "reform" and "opposition."

The problem, of course, is that it typically takes a significant shock to trigger a significant change in a system without a functional opposition party - by which I mean one which actually opposes - and the current situation was made worse, not better, by such a shock. And I don't think the next one will be far enough off to function as a truly separate event, or to build an actual, functional opposition.

But one, I suppose, can always hope.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Based on Obama's Foreign Affairs article, and how he's voted on the issues, he seems like a militant right-winger to me. People putting their faith in him to "bring the balance back" are aligning themselves with false hopes. It's as Gore Vidal says, there's only one party in the States, the Property Party, with two right wings.

Judging by the polls, a lot of people don't see much difference between him and McCain. That's probably right, though I'd say the O-man is the more cunning and less out of it of the two, and therefore would make a better buy for the Owners.

Come to think of it, isn't the O-man raising something like 500 million for the cause? The last threshold for The Cheerleader In Chief was something like 100-150 million wasn't it? Holy funding, Batman! I shudder to think what the Owners are buying for that amount.

- Paul

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

There's a huge difference between McCain and Obama across the board. If people don't get that, they're not paying attention.

The differences are fewer on foreign policy, aside from Iraq and Iran where Obama has a much better position. Basically, Obama supports the bipartisan status quo ante of the pre-Bush years, which makes him a center-rightist on foreign policy. If you liked Bill Clinton's foreign policy--I didn't--you'll like Obama's. McCain, on the other hand, is even more extreme than Bush, which puts him on the far right. Also, there's the matter of temperament. Obama is level-headed. McCain's got an anger-management problem. Temperament matters in foreign affairs, because you want someone who will carefully consider the options rather than act rashly, when the consequences are as potentially severe as nuclear war.

As for the money Obama is raising, much of that is from individual supporters who aren't members of the Property Party. He's less tied to the corporate money than any other modern presidential candidate, which is to say that he's still closely connected while also having another source of funding. I'll take that over McCain's fundraising-as-usual.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I'm curious what part of the FA article you thought read like 'a militant right-winger.'

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

In this sort of culturally-republican-ish environment, and in this case, that means the instant marginalisation of ideas, regardless of merit and/or reality and/or history (c.f. the Democratic Party leadership, Olbermann, et al). In a more openly authoritarian system, it of course means far worse. Fortunately we are not there yet, various GOP rank-and-file desires to the contrary.

Calling either of the two mainstream American political parties "authoritarian," or even tending toward authoritarian, is partisan prejudice to a point that blinds one to political reality. Neither party is particularly authoritarian, and if you compare our system to real dictatorships you would see this instantly.

Only in the world where Only America Is Real can the claim stand.

[solarbird]

I've spent a lot of time studying authoritarian systems. They usually involve some form of consent of the governed, tho' obviously not always. And what we have now as a de facto system is authoritarian. It's not particularly oppressive, which is different; there are "soft" and "hard" authoritarian systems, at least in theory - tho' in reality they trend towards oppression more and more over time.

I will gladly say that the US is not very oppressive at this point - at least, not internally. It's certainly, absolutely not. But the structures, outside the court system (...barely...), are now authoritarian in outline and function, and I stand by that. An authoritarianism of angels would still be authoritarian.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court just finished rebuking our Executive Branch on Gitmo, that's not something you're going to see in a truly authoritarian system, for example in Pakistan where the Chief Justice found himself dismissed and put under house arrest.

I think the larger problem is that one major branch of government, the legislative branch, is basically unwilling to play their role and instead is just throwing up their hands on the larger important issues. And frankly most people in this country don't really care, so they'll probably get away with it. Which is not ideal, but I still think different from an authoritarian system.

[solarbird]

And I called that out. And I pointed out that on these issues of structure, the only remaining major point of distinction in fact is the Supreme Court appointment(s) coming up.

But the Chief Executive has successfully declared himself above and immune to the law, including above Constitutional law, on dozens of occasions. He has spent moneys in direct and specific violation of law; he has withheld funds ordered spent by Congress (an Article of Impeachment against Nixon, btw); he has repudiated laws he did not like; he has repudiated treaties he did not like. He has most importantly declared, and Congress is now endorsing rather than merely let stand, that orders given by the Chief Executive are de facto always legal, and thereby override law, providing immunity from punishment. The core of authoritarianism is rule by personal decree trumping rule of law; this is how Mr. Bush has ruled, and this is what this Congress has endorsed. With both branches in charge of appointing Court members in those hands, it strikes me that we will be very, very lucky not to see that 5-4 decision reversed in short order - or, if and when (almost certainly, when) the next significant terrorist attack happens, simply ignored.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

But that's not structural. There's a difference between someone having power and not using it and someone not having power. Congress has power, they're not using it right now. The legislature under Pinochet had no power.

At some point there very well could be a showdown, and the fact that the President claims he has such and such power doesn't mean he has that power. That's a huge difference in my opinion.

[solarbird]

But that's not structural. There's a difference between someone having power and not using it and someone not having power. Congress has power, they're not using it right now. The legislature under Pinochet had no power.
It's the current operating structure. No, it's of course not the paper structure, but very few of the major tyrannies of the 20th century had that as the structure on paper. China's constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. The Soviet Union's guaranteed all kinds of political freedoms. Nazi Germany was operating under the legislative framework of the Weimar Republic through 1945! The Reichstag continued to meet! Revoke the Enabling Act - which they could've at any time - and ping! Back to parliamentary democracy! At least, on paper. Hell, the Roman Senate continued to meet throughout most of the duration of the Empire. Sure, sometimes it had horses appointed, but by the gods it continued to meet and debate!

If there is no enforcement of law, no enforcement of these limits and checks, then there is no law. Currently, aside from habeas corpus (which, given the reported secret prison system onboard US Navy ships, I'm not sure we can actually set aside - given Mr. Bush's actions of the past, I think they've simply shifted the location of their activities to new locales harder to find), there is no enforcement. Not even of Congressional subpoenas - Mr. Bush's politicised and co-opted Justice Department simply refuses to enforce them. Accordingly, there is no law. There is culture, there are suggestions, both of which can be and routinely are set aside.

At some point there very well could be a showdown, and the fact that the President claims he has such and such power doesn't mean he has that power.
If there is no showdown, there is no enforcement. That what the showdown is about - enforcing that law. There hasn't been any. And in a system of precedent (and with a long history of recognition of precedent), getting away with something once in a legal framework means you can get away with it again. Also, if you can and do use a power and no one stops you, you have that power. You may not have that power on paper, but that's irrelevant in a lawless structure; it's what you can do that matters, and we've seen what the Chief Executive thinks he can do and has done - at least, some of it. Who knows how much else? We don't, and probably won't, because the investigations are being blocked - in some cases, as now, by Congress itself.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Use it or lose it. I generally have a hopeful view that Congress will eventually turn things around, and unlike solarbird I think the Democrats are spineless rather than wholly complicit in what's happening. But the problem with not using your power is that when you finally do get around to trying to use it, you might find that you don't have it anymore. Congress absolutely needs to start acting like the co-equal branch it is. In my judgment, they're more likely to do that if the next election repudiates the Republican Party. After the Democrats have control of the first two branches of government, the goal becomes supporting better Democrats (and a rare good Republican if I can find one), and holding them accountable. I hope to see most pro-FISA immunity Democrats challenged during the 2010 primary.

But if we target both parties now, voting for a third party or not at all, we not only won't get better Democrats, but we'll be saddled with the authoritarian Republicans that dominate our system now.

[solarbird]

But if we target both parties now, voting for a third party or not at all, we not only won't get better Democrats, but we'll be saddled with the authoritarian Republicans that dominate our system now.
"Vote for us or you'll get even worse" is how, sadly, we got here. It's what the Democrats have been saying since at least, hum, 1988? Given the degenerate point to which the system has fallen, though, I agree with this in terms of the Presidency. But not anywhere further down.

If you're wondering what I'd like to see happen - I realise it won't, of course - is this: I'd like to see the 15 Senators and probably 40-60 Representatives who actually believe in this stuff split off and form a new party. Go head and announce that they'll caucus with the Democrats, sure, that's fine; be coalition partners, of a sort. But be a separate party that doesn't fuck around like the Democrats do on this matter. Until there's an active leadership voice specifically for these things, this won't get fixed.

And I am very much not expecting big changes "when it's safe" next year - after all, why would they, when this "won" them more seats and (semi-)power? They'll keep doing what brought them into office until it doesn't bring them into office anymore.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I don't see betrayal of your supporters as being equivalent to a purge. I also don't see cowardice in the face of authoritarianism as the same thing as being inherently authoritarian.

[solarbird]

You give far more credence to their words than their actions, and blame cowardice; I give more credence to their actions than their words, and from that, divine intent - or, if not active intent, motivations too unimportant to matter. We'll no doubt see who is right soon enough.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

True, but that judgment aside, a betrayal is not a purge.

[solarbird]

If the purpose is to repudiate a class of followers, then I think it is, or at very least, fits well enough. And the purpose here appears very much to be to repudiate the class, to demonstrate his independence from them and their reliance on him rather than the other way around, as I described. This is to impress the next round of power-brokers up the ladder, as part of attaining the next level of power. For example, when Newsweek's Jonathan Alter talked about Senator Obama showing "strength" by flipping on FISA (I discussed it already very briefly here), this is what I think he felt and why and how he felt it, even if he didn't articulate it and couldn't rationally explain it. (His explanation contradicts itself; rationally, it's incoherent.)

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I saw this video of John Conyers questioning a pro-torture Bushie, and thought of you. He's asking a simple question: does the president have the authority to order someone to be buried alive?

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/06/can_the_president_order_a_suspect_buried

Do you think this is showmanship by Conyers, designed to obscure his secret support of Bush policies? I think this is a good example of why the Democratic Party is better than the GOP, but hobbled by political cowardice from doing the right thing.

[solarbird]

Buried alive is not a particularly shocking question, at this point. A previous iteration of this questioning at Mr. Yoo saying that the President could torture specifically innocent children, so we already know exactly how far Mr. Yoo thinks the Chief Executive can go. They ask a lot of questions and they get a lot of answers, some of which are extremely brutal. But they do nothing to actively contest the actual claims and uses of power, and they do nothing that actually acts against that power.

So until they actually do things towards actually stopping these policies, I have to assume that they either support these policies, or accept them as reasonable policies.

[solarbird]

Or wait, that was Gonzalez? Well, no difference, really.

ETA: No, I was right, it was Mr. Yoo.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

talk to me some more about this rules for authoritarians and such, and what we the Loyal Opposition need to be about in the coming days, weeks, months, years, decades, who the f*** knows...

I need a key (non-physical) from you.... we can do this Sunday if you like...

[solarbird]

Something I would suggest is either use the words you mean (a PGP key for encrypted messaging) or don't say anything about it in transmitted fora at all. Wink-wink nudge-nudge you-know-what-I-mean-isms disguise nothing, but instead only attract what I presume to be the wrong kind of attention.

[partywhipple.livejournal.com]

I wonder if people read what you wrote here and think you're loony. I say that because I think you're not saying enough. I don't think of myself as an insane conspiracy theorist, but I do think that we have one party in the government and they're pretending to be two so we don't just rebel and slaughter them all.

[solarbird]

(You also have a separate reply here from no-LJ-account Paul.)

I wonder if people read what you wrote here and think you're loony.
I don't get a lot of that, mostly because I document things pretty well.

I don't think of myself as an insane conspiracy theorist
Unsurprisingly, neither do they ^_^

but I do think that we have one party in the government and they're pretending to be two so we don't just rebel and slaughter them all.
We have a large political class which is beholden mostly to itself. When it has disagreements about things, popular views and things like law and Constitution are invoked as weapons against the other factions. But when it's in agreement within itself, nothing really is going to stop it, no matter how hideous or illegal the agreement might be.

[partywhipple.livejournal.com]

Yep. Exactly. But they do have the games to keep the plebs happy...

Crazy theories, and people can think about me what they will

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

The "shadow government" theories have never convinced me, but various evidence to the contrary/not bad counterarguments aside, I've never been entirely unconvinced that some version of them isn't in play, either.

The most likely version of a shadow government (imo, and granted I could be totally wrong and I'm not even 100% convinced of this one) would be more a set of sometimes competing loose corporate mob-type things that through bribery and blackmail manipulate which candidates/parties gets a shot at being elected and limits what they can do economically (and in various other things that effect profits indirectly; thus why I think we have two opposing candidates favoring the alternative energy source that would be as easy to oligopolize--I know that's not a word--and as impossible to decentralize as oil -- if we must have a replacement, let's make sure it is one that keeps power consolidated), but doesn't much care about social issues except insofar as they can be used to manipulate opinion against one set or another.

Though with the telecomm/spying stuff, I'm not at all sure various elements of the rethugs weren't trying to get a lot more blackmail info so that all this behind-the-scenes power could be permanently consolidated into one entity.

None of this is that farfetched or beyond what various elements in our and other governments have already done or suggested, btw.

What I *can't* convince myself of is one single shadow entity pulling strings to the exclusion of all others -- to be very vague and oversimplistic, too much ebb and flow.

All that said, I do see a lot of differences in individual politicians, some being less connected to the various establishments than others, thus the rather less favorable media treatment of some than others, and still others simply being ignored in the hopes that no one will notice what they are saying, though some of this is simply our media being easily manipulated and/or not very good at their jobs, if their jobs are other than propagandists.

(sorry, I'm in a rush and don't have time to do this right, if I'm gonna go out on the conspiracy theory limb, which is why I usually don't except in really obvious specific individual cases, especially since I think I'm a minority view even on some of what I think are obvious specific individual cases)

[(Anonymous)]

partywhipple: Make no mistake, it's a one party system. The two factions both agree on the same thing: "Kill the bastards...". They disagree with one another over the specifics - "...because we can." versus "...if it's not too expensive."

The variations of their struggles over that second clause are put forward by the Mediacracy sportscasters as plays in a two party game, but when it comes to the main issue both factions are on the same side.

- Paul

[partywhipple.livejournal.com]

Totally agree Paul. Totally agree.

Yay we're gonna get to be thrown up against a wall and shot!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Wait that's not a good thing! THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL!!!!

Oh man I REALLY need to get some sleep!

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Solarbird -- is it any surprise to you that I agree w/you completely here?

Hopefully having a fan of Hillary say this doesn't make you rethink your entire position. *g*

[solarbird]

Senator Clinton strikes me as being just as much a part of that system, so I don't see any contradiction here.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't think there's any contradiction in your position; mentioned our differing views of Hillary (and both the Clintons, really) primarily in an attempt at humor. Apparently a failed attempt. *g*