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

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[(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

[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*