Historically, there have been authoritarian societies that placed Party Loyalty above all else.

[bvar22]

These authoritarian Societies have some characteristics in common:

*They have all had a Father Figure to which they pledged complete allegiance.

*They have placed Party Loyalty above Good Policy and Fairness.

*They have all attacked the Whistle Blowers and Critics,
considering the critics as disloyal to the Party

*They have ALL ended badly.

[Throd]

1. This time is different.

[derby378]

2. In other words, if you see somethin', SAY somethin'

Because sometimes nobody else will stand on their hind legs unless you do it first.

[Scuba]

3. Ray-gun and his 11th Commandment were the epitome of this group-think.

I hate it when I see otherwise sane DUers behave this way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. where's YOUR proof?

as you suggested to me earlier?

But I can understand why you opposed the Founding Fathers creating such an "authoritarian Society" as this American one...they did decide on a "father figure" called a President.

Will it be a "mother figure" when Hillary is elected?

[bvar22]

7. My "proof" is in the History Books.

I'm not surprised that you are unfamiliar with them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. Oh I am quite familiar...I also smell B.S. very well too!

and something sure smells badly...

[bvar22]

22. You are "familiar" with the History Books?

Then you need a review.

The study of Authoritarian Societies is meant to be cautionary,
not a Blue Print.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. No review needed...I reject your assessment out of hand that THIS is one!

but keep it up...get a President Rand Paul and you will most assuredly find out the difference!

[bvar22]

35. Making stuff up again? Well, that IS easier, I guess.

Please cite where I assessed "THIS" as an authoritarian Society.

I merely cautioned against authoritarian thinking,
and listed a few characteristics.

Did the shoe fit too well?
Sure sounds like it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. YOU did...stop denying it!

that shoe fits YOU very well and as you see from the response you got Quite easily proven....you were wrong!

I quote sir or madame:
"These authoritarian Societies have some characteristics in common:"


the backpedal is that you are now suggesting you didn't mean THIS American society. Not buying it!

[bvar22]

129. Do you really believe that this statement:

"These authoritarian Societies have some characteristics in common:"

.....is an accusation that I consider the United States today to be one of these "historical" Authoritarian Societies?

You see, when someone talks about Historical Societies,
that means something that has happened IN THE PAST.

The real give away is the last characteristic:

*they have all ended badly

As far as I can tell, the US hasn't ended yet,
so is automatically eliminated from those that are being discussed in the OP.

So. YES.
You are still making stuff up in order to manufacture outrage.

Now, lets move from History
to Contemporary Events:

I do not consider the USA today to be an Authoritarian Society.
I DO believe that we are moving in that direction.
I also believe that there exists a certain mindset that would welcome it.
The 1%, and their Mouth Pieces will be the FIRST to embrace it,
quickly followed by The Followers.

I suggest a course in Logic, English, and Critical Thinking.
You would find those helpful in understanding DU,
and understanding the difference between History and Current Events.
After all, this is NOT the Beavis & Butthead Chatroom at AoL,
though I do believe we are heading in THAT direction too. (LOL)

No Charge.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. what I believe is that YOU called the U.S. an Authoritarian state...

scratch that...what I KNOW is...

no amount of blah blah de blah blah..is going to change that!

[bvar22]

134. Here's...

...your sign.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. no YOU are the one with the "The U.S. is an Authoritarian Society" card

hanging round YOUR neck!

Enjoy!!

[bvar22]

148. You have FAILED to post a link to where I called the US an "Authoritarian Society".

How can we help you understand the difference between "History" and "Current Events"?

Parading around DU in a phony outrage over something no one had said will NOT change your false claims into true claims. THAT is the Magical Thinking of early childhood.

The only thing that will change your False Claims into True Claims is when you post a link to where I called the contemporary USA an Authoritarian Society.

I am delighted to have you continue kicking this thread,
especially since you insist on standing on an embarrassingly FAILED position that is obvious to anybody reading this thread.
More people will have an opportunity to view your performance,
and connect you Screen Name to Willful Distortion and childish tantrums.

Thank You.

Please Proceed.

[GoneFishin]

122. +1. Protesting too much maybe?

[rhett o rick]

45. I think we should have a new rule, the first one to say "Rand Paul" loses.

It usually signifies desperation.

[Progressive dog]

61. I think the ones without the guts to

identify the "authoritarian society" of which they speak have already lost.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. why? Does it upset your constitution?

does it hit too close to home?

[rhett o rick]

104. No because it shows that the discussion has come to an end. Desperation has set in

and you must start your name calling or ridicule.

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. Yeah for you....

you have something of substance to add? Because how is your last post more than name calling yourself?

Here's a mirror...

[sabrina 1]

136. Yes, since you asked, it does 'upset' our Constitution, and yes, when something

upsets our Constitution it most certainly SHOULD hit close to home.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. I said "YOURS" ....that word has more than one meaning

as I am sure your "journalism" cred tells you!

Here...let me help you out:


Definition of Constitution:
2. the composition of something.
"the genetic constitution of a species"
synonyms: composition, makeup, structure, construction, arrangement, configuration, formation, anatomy More

[sabrina 1]

141. I have no journalistic experience. But thanks. However when someone on a

political forum talks about My Constitution I assume they are talking about what is a huge issue in this country today, the attacks on all of our Constitution by authoritarians who have even gone so far as to call it 'a quaint old document'.

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. rioght.....

but when it is convenient to you....you don't mind "trotting that out" do you?

[zeemike]

95. You need to have scary guy to herd people the way you want them to go.

That is how it works...Emanual Goldstein was useful even if he did not exist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

108. not sure what you are saying ...but okay whatever...

[Enthusiast]

118. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[Oilwellian]

34. That's an odd thing to say

I never considered any president to be my daddy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. I didn't say it...I am making fun of it!

who's YOUR daddy?

[sabrina 1]

107. Now that was funny!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only,...

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.

Rosa Luxemburg

[OKNancy]

6. are you saying that folks here who support Obama

on most things are in some way going to destroy our country?
If you are, that is ridiculous.

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. this is EXACTLY what they suggest...

its not really Obama they hate...its the American form of govt ...or any govt for that matter....

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Oh you better believe much of the hate is directed at Obama

Plus...the fact that he's African Americans makes them even more deranged about him.

ODS - Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Well for some yes you are absolutely right...

but then you have those that are just anti-govt types....and hate ALL govt.

[sabrina 1]

138. Yeah, those 'leftie, commie hippies' who 'hate America'. Is that who you are

talking about?

Where did I hear this before?

Btw, I have asked this before and am STILL waiting for an answer, but where are all these commies who hate this President on DU? Could you please, just name at least ONE OF THEM. Thank you.

[Pathwalker]

144. So, you're asking someone to violate DU terms of service?

And get themselves banned? Calling out, by name, individual DUers is a serious violation, but you probably know that. Cute.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. and I am too smart for her....thanks!!

[sabrina 1]

149. Excuse me? IF there is someone on this forum who has expressed hatred for the

President, they are SUPPOSED to be named and banned. So no, I am asking her to ABIDE by the rules.

[Pathwalker]

152. Uh huh. LOL.

[sabrina 1]

155. So there is no hatred on DU for this president as she claimed. Thank you, I didn't

think so. I have never seen it and would definitely have alerted if I had.

Now that that is settled hopefully we will not see these false accusations that no one is willing to even give an example of, not even in their own words without naming anyone, again.

You're still free to provide an example, if, and I'm not sure from your little roly poly laughing guy, you are still making that claim, without even naming names, of what you consider this 'hatred for the president to be'. You don't need to quote anyone exactly, but just in your own words, explain what you are talking about.

But if you are agreeing that there is no such hatred for the president on this forum, then never mind.

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. did I say that?

read my sig line....might give you a clue what I think....

[sabrina 1]

150. Did you say what? You said that there are people on DU who have expressed

hatred for the President. You have stated that people who oppose the destruction of our Constitutional rights are people who hate authority of any kind.

If you don't want to name these people who are posting here according to, violating the rules then post an example in your own words of this 'hatred' that most of us have not seen and would have alerted on, which YOU should have done, if we had.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. pay attention....

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. If you say "you didn't watch the SOTU"

just read those posts on this thread...I am sure you can figure it out....with all your super snooper journalistic skills and all!

[sabrina 1]

156. Are you mistaking me for someone else?

with all your super snooper journalistic skills and all!

I have never claimed to have ANY journalistic skills so that appears to be meant for someone else. This is the second time I have corrected you on that wild, fantasy. So I'm assuming you think you are talking to someone else.

I didn't see the President's speech live. I sure hope that not seeing the speech doesn't translate into hatred. We were very busy yesterday so I knew I would not be able to see it until later. That means I hate the President now?

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. If you haven't seen the Pres. Obama hatred at DU....

then you just aren't paying much attention!

and no...I am not going to fall into your trap of calling out other posters...sorry to disappoint.

[KittyWampus]

12. Like teenagers who resent ANY form of authority. Heck, like 2 year olds…..

[VanillaRhapsody]

18. exactly like that....

they prefer a Lord of the Flies type existence...

[mike_c]

14. nah...

It's just you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. actually ....no it isn't.

spend some more time on DU...

[bvar22]

13. What is rediculous is your pathetic Strawman.

For Your Education:

Almost all posts that beging with,
"SO, what your are saying is...."

or

"Are you saying that......."

are Strawmen,
as your response so perfectly illustrates.

No Charge.


I was clear in the OP.
THAT is what I have said.
Nothing more;
nothing less.

Of course, you are free to continue fantasizing about what you wish I had said.

[OKNancy]

17. still ridiculous

[Scootaloo]

29. There are certainly fascists on DU.

I don' think they reflect on President Obama any more than John Hinckley reflects on Jodie Foster... but they're certainly there.

[ProSense]

30. Are there any racist "fascists"? n/t

[Scootaloo]

32. More than a couple, yes.

Is there an inquiry lurking there or do you just want to play 20 questions?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

93. There are no fascists on D.U.

Plenty of nutcases though.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ And none of them can kill my buzz. Watching my my President killing it in the SoTU

[Scootaloo]

97. If that's what you want to believe, go ahead

I've dealt with too many to doubt.

[fadedrose]

9. Good policy and fairness

are the only valid reasonsfor following your party leader. I think that my President strives for good policy and fairness, and that's why he has my loyalty.

He does not run an authoritarian government, and doesn't call whistle blowers and critics disloyal to the party, but if true, they may be called disloyal to the United States. There are "spies" who affect people of both parties that way and party loyalty takes a back seat or front seat depending on opinion.

I know of many in DU who are disenchanted with the President, but I have not seen where they are quitting his party and joining another. But if they are happier somewhere else, then they should go.

[Igel]

66. There's a frame of reference issue.

Don't know how the OP would respond. Might find out. I probably won't check back.

Some of his points reduce to one. He leaves some off. His point's valid, even if I can't remember his moniker and have no idea if he's even a he.

In such societies, it's not that partisans put party loyalty over good and fair policies. They don't value party over the country.

They conflate party and country, government and party, the need for a strong figure to implement good and fair policies over an opposition that is not just wrong but morally condemned as evil.

These types of parties always include a strong moralizing component. "Practicality" is seldom sufficient motivation for true oppression--you have to have history or God or something bigger and justifying on your side. Only those believing themselves utterly righteous can be evil through-and-through. Only a messiah can come and reduce the population by 90% with wr, famine, disease, and call it "good." Your policies can never be self-serving--they're only to help "the people", but coincidentally the party members are always the "people" and non-party members, even if they're a majority, aren't really (the) people. The fiction must be preserved, the delusion kept intact. It's a trivially facile delusion to maintain. We're all humans, after all.

Often--most often--the party loyal assume that whatever their leaders (who are good, and smart, and pure, and for what's right and just) say is what is good and fair. Many can't actually argue beyond repeating what their leaders say. But their logic is always, to themselves, impeccable--and there can be no other facts or argumentation. Not for nothing was a leading Soviet publication called "Arguments and Facts" ... for helping the true believers persuade those of little faith in the party. The partisans identify with the party and find their self-image in the party. To disparage their party's leader--which may be a person or may be a group--is to disparage them personally. To disparage the party is rather like having a Muslim go into a Jewish synagogue to sacrifice a pig and use its blood in to establish communion with Buddha. It's blasphemy in so many different ways as to boggle the mind.

But none of this is to just help the party, except incidentally. The reason to help the party is because the party is, ultimately, the country--the savior of the country, the only good force in the country, the only way for the country to move forward. There is only One True Path, and that is through the party. (It's Stalin's line, so the Christ imagery is his.)

Now, most partisans tend to hold some of these views. What's important is that the true partisans insist that party members hold *all* of these views consistenty. To defend the enemy as "people," to say that the party leader doesn't embody goodness and justice, to say that some of the policies are wrong or wrong-headed--or to simply fail to support each party plank--heck, even to say that an argument is unconvincing, is to be branded an enemy of the people. Or a sockpuppet. Whichever.

To say that the party should compromise in the interest of the country is blasphemy. There can be no truck between the forces of good and the forces of evil.

These aren't "fascists." They're a kind of totalitarian of which fascists are often a subtype. They includes Mugabistas, Chavistas, Stalinists and Hitlerites. Any person in a party that doesn't content himself or herself with general adherence to the party's premises and policies on the part of others veers in this direction. More than a few populists, when the movement is organized, fall into this category. Some folk here over the summer--and a few linger--not only veer in this direction, they're at the door of that destination checking IDs and doing retina scans and background checks.

[Ed Suspicious]

78. Excellent reply.

[LuvNewcastle]

125. Great post.

[baldguy]

15. Don't whine when President Paul signs the liberal hunting permits into law, then.

If you really want to see an authoritarian regime in America, just keep withholding support from the Democratic Party.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. BINGO! There's that truth stuff again...

that gets to the heart of the matter baldguy!

[bvar22]

21. Making stuff up again?

Where has anybody suggested with holding support from the Democratic Party?

The OP was a caution against demonizing/persecuting Whistle Blowers and critics,
a characteristic of Authoritarian Societies.

Do you wish to dispute that claim?

[baldguy]

23. But demonizing people who *support* the Party is A-OK?

[derby378]

27. I can support the party and still be critical of how the party does things

I learned that valuable lesson from Howard Dean back in 2004. If supporting the party means supporting what comes out of some smoke-filled room, that don't sound too Democratic to me.

Republicans believe in top-down authority. Democrats tend to believe in building the party from the bottom up.

[baldguy]

31. But Democrats don't believe in alienating other good Democrats by calling them authoritarians.

That's just another word for "fascist" - and it's nothing but a load of FUCKING BULLSHIT!!

Every time that someone claiming to be a "liberal Democrat" whines that Obama is an authoritarian & uses RW libertarian talking points, Karl Rove high fives Rupert Murdoch & "President Rand Paul" comes one step closer to controlling the White House.

[bvar22]

82. ..But YOUR attacks on the "Liberal Democrats" is meant to bring everyubody together?

"Every time that someone claiming to be a "liberal Democrat" whines that Obama is an authoritarian & uses RW libertarian talking points, Karl Rove high fives Rupert Murdoch & "President Rand Paul" comes one step closer to controlling the White House."

[font size=4]Agree with ME, MF,...... Or ELSE Rand Paul, and it'll be YOUR fault!!!!!????[/font

Oh Yeah, Thats gonna work.

[baldguy]

86. "Liberal Democrats" who channel Rand Paul aren't liberal Democrats.

And they certainly don't do anything to ensure America lives up to it's aspirations or equity & social justice. They damage those aspirations.

[noiretextatique]

124. "liberal democrats" who support Rand Paul

Are neither liberals or democrats. For your edification.

[baldguy]

160. And yet they continue to be allowed to post here on DU.

[noiretextatique]

163. like racist, sexist, homophobic trolls

Why can't you understand that? have so-called centrists ever accomplished without pressure from the left? Or the right, for that matter.

[baldguy]

164. For your edification

RW libertarians like Rand Paul AND HIS SUPPORTERS are the racist, sexist, homophobic authoritarians that real liberal Democrats battle against. At least they should be. Why can't you understand that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. NO that is NOT what this was is it?

You called this an "authoritarian Society" in this OP and I dispute THAT!

backpedalling gets you no where!

[bvar22]

130. Making stuff up again.

Please cite where I called the USA an "authoritarian society".
What do you FAIL to understand about the word "historical"?

The USA and all other contemporary nations are specifically excluded from the OP by the last line which states:

*They have ALL ended badly"

Has the USA ended yet?

I have politely attempted to correct your mistake upthread,
but you continue with the willful distortions.
How can I help you understand the difference between "History" and "Contemporary Events"?

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. Right there plain for all to see...

I am certainly not the ONLY one that noticed this "mistake" you made in this suggestion that the U.S. is an Authoritarian State...

You are NOT going to get THAT past this girl...

sorry...your backpedal is epic fail!

[Scootaloo]

36. I think you bank too hard on Paul being the only alternative.

Throw some variation in there, liven it up. Bachman's just as batshit and has roughly the same odds. What about good ol' Herman Cain? I kind of miss having that guy scream the number nine at me every day.

Point being, you need variety, else it gets monotonous. It helps if the options you select are actually contenders (unless I suppose your intent is self-parody?) but anything's better than just throwing the same guy out there time after time after time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. Not "banking on it" either...simply making the appropriate comparison to

who would run an "authoritarian state" and who doesn't.

[Scootaloo]

48. Naw, either Paul would go down a different road to dystopia

Less "1984" and more "Beyond Thunderdome."

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. I would suggest Somalia!

for his Libertarian paradise..

[Scootaloo]

52. What the fuck do you have against Somalians?

Seriously, haven't those people suffered enough without us inflicting that upon them?

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Good point....but imagine their consternation at him or Michelle Bachmann...

praising them for their lack of a Social Safety Net! And complimenting them for their ability to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps"!

[Scootaloo]

60. Bachman in Somalia?

I'm picturing what happens to fish when you drop a rock in the aquarium (by the way aspiring fishkeepers, don't do this)

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. well she is dumb as a whole box of them!

but imagine her telling them how proud she is of their great success!

[quakerboy]

43. Now thats just rediculous

Under president paul, no permits will be required for anything, much less something so common sense as hunting people you have been told you disagree with.

[Ed Suspicious]

80. I see the dissent from those who criticize the president less as a throwing the party under the bus

rather it is a way to shape the party the way they want it. Those who demand acceptance of party line are akin to post 9/11 republicans shouting "USA, love or leave it!"

[baldguy]

99. Then why continually cast supporters of the Democratic Party as fascists?

That's what the Teabaggers do!

[blackspade]

94. Hyperbolic bullshit.

Rand Paul is not going to be elected as President.
Equating criticism with electing Paul, Bachman, or whatever the authoritarian boogeyman is this week is intellectually dishonest.

[baldguy]

98. If you're worried about invoking the authoritarian boogeyman, talk to the OP.

[Rex]

114. Authoritarians gets mad when called out into the sunlight.

As you can clearly see by some of the posts in this thread.

[Rex]

113. We saw it under the BFEE, sadly a certain few like to pretend that never happened.

nt.

[JVS]

119. As if that would ever happen.

[LordGlenconner]

139. Agreed

Some of these folks throw the word around as if they actually know what it means.

[BrotherIvan]

24. But those leaders weren't *magic*

with sparkly rainbows and hearts!



This thread is the Twilight Zone of BOrGy BOrGness

[JoePhilly]

26. Does Nostradamus want to make a prediction?

Or is this just a rather thin history lesson?

[ProSense]

28. "They have all had a Father Figure to which they pledged complete allegiance. "

Daddy Obama?

Or are you talking about Republicans?

Historically, people who try to disguise attacks on others using fascist constructs are those losing the argument.

Now, leave the Socialist Muslim and his supporters alone.

[Niceguy1]

33. I never follow party blindly and never

Will. And the people who expect us to are the problem.

[pampango]

37. There should be a balance. Without SOME party loyalty we have no party and

we cannot achieve much on our own. With TOO MUCH party loyalty things do end badly.

The challenge is finding the balance between some and too much.

[quinnox]

38. Yep, and it ain't a pretty picture

present day North Korea, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, a ton of different African countries with dictator types who rule, these are not good societies to live in to say the least. That is what history shows.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. but we do not even come close to those repressive regimes...

[quinnox]

42. not yet, but there are troubling signs we may be headed that way

re: the spying overreach, the "homeland" term for the country, the paranoid atmosphere.

I think the OPs point is we should heed warning signs and be vigiliant to protect freedoms in America.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. No actually the future looks bright....

We are not even close to someone who "kills his uncle's whole family...including the children". Shame on you for even saying such a thing...

as long as SOME folks stop this attempt to divide the party before the Mid Terms and we do not deliver a Dem Congress.

You do realize that spying is not the ONLY thing to consider right?

[quinnox]

49. I have no idea what your first sentence refers to or means, but for many of us, believe it or not

the spying thing is a big deal. The ACLU for one.

Anyway, when I start seeing edits in posts that seem weird, and putting words that I never said, I end the conversation. I'm not interested in responding to stuff like that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. the Leader of N Korea

killed his Uncle's entire family...

THAT is what Authoritarian looks like...we are not even close by any stretch of even YOUR imagination...

[Maedhros]

55. Yes - once we created the Department of Homeland Security

we had our very own Sicherheitsdienst.

"Watch what we say, and watch what we do" became the American mantra.

"Be Afraid" is our rallying cry.

[quinnox]

63. When the term "homeland" stops being used, and we go back to "America" or the USA, then I will take

that as a good sign. I agree with you.


Edited: or "domestic", the word we used to use. So, it would be called "The Department of Domestic security"
That sounds a lot better to me anyway.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. Actually the NSA goes back to the very early 1900's but you will overlook that!

[Maedhros]

89. I'm searching your post for relevance, and am finding none.

Admit it - you just like to sneer at people on the Internet

(Pro Tip: posting actual content is doubleplusgood!)

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. I like to sneer at those who hold foolish notions...

[Progressive dog]

46. Which one are you referring to? nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. The twice elected Democratic president is, of course, a fascist Fuhrer figure, like OBVI!!!

And anyone who doesn't spend 100% of his or her time bashing everything OBUMMER the Fascist does is, like, totally Hitler jugend, nahmean? Especially here!!!

It's the usual tortured nonsense of our so-called progressives. Nothing new or surprising here.

[Progressive dog]

56. Thank you nt

[zeemike]

103. The twice elected Democratic president is, of course, a saint God like figure, like OBVI!!!

And anyone who doesn't spend 100% of his or her time praising everything OBAMA the saint does is, like, totally Hitler jugend, nahmean? Especially here!!!

Now does my hyperbole sound any better than yours?...Does it make any more sense?...does it bring us closer to anything?

[bvar22]

133. The contemporary USA is specifically excluded from the OP,

...as are all current nations.
That is implicit with the word "Historically" which is the very first word in the OP,
and then reinforced by the last line of the OP which states:

*They have ALL ended badly."

As far as I can tell, no nation in existence today has "ended badly".... yet.
Anyone with modest critical thinking skills can determine that the OP was Cautionary in its mention of "historical" societies, and not as an indictment of any current nation or society.

How can I help you understand the difference between "History" and "Current Events"?

[hunter]

54. There is no authority worthy of respect...

... but for that authority based in experience, talent, or science.

All the other sorts of "authority" are best defused or avoided.

One generally respects parents and teachers because they are experienced.

One respects artists because they are talented.

One respects science because it is tested.

All other "authorities" are highly suspect and must be challenged.

Anyone who can't answer "why?" (including parents, teachers, artists, and scientists) is probably hiding something and not worthy of respect as an authority.

For parents, "Because I said so!" is only a temporary placeholder demanding further attention at a later time.

Yep, my wife and I did pull the "Because I said so!" card when our kids were teens, but we'd always come to some sort of understanding later. Thus our kids escaped some of the trouble we ourselves experienced as teens.

I personally support Democrats because that's the way our stupid political system works. The Republican Party is rotten. Mitt Romney would have been another nightmarish president along the lines of Nixon, Reagan, or the Bush family zombies. Obama is a competent executive for the twisted Republic I happened to be born in.

Personally I'm a socialist environmentalist, and a fairly radical sort at that, but I'm never going to split the Democratic vote if there is some possibility of some authoritarian or otherwise twisted Republican being elected.

[mopinko]

58. i think there is ample proof that loyalty has as often been put to good use

as to evil. many great things were done by those who set self aside for union. whatever that union might be.

[Octafish]

59. When you have to go along or else, it's not democracy.

The United States of America was founded on a radical idea: That the people, rather than a king, are the ultimate authority. "We the People" are supposed to be the government.

Today, things in the USA have gotten skewed. Only certain people have authority, the Party or the insiders or the Elite. Whatever their name, these few people think they are entitled to know things that the people are not privy to know.

They also make decisions that the people are not "authorized" to know. The holders of the secrets also benefit from their inside information and use their positions of power to see that their cronies are protected and also benefit in secret.

No matter how deep one shoves their head in the sand, that's how things are today. Secret government is contrary to the nation's origins, history and Constitution.

[hunter]

116. The U.S.A. has no glorious origins. It's always been rotten.

Especially apartheid and fascist rotten.

Best we struggle to make it less rotten.

Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Martin Luther King

We shall overcome.

[LuvNewcastle]

126. That's exactly right. We've had to fight for our most important rights.

God help us if we ever stop fighting.

[frwrfpos]

62. recommend

thanks

[whatchamacallit]

64. The Democratic Party can kiss my ass

as can the Republican Party and any other party if they expect my vote out of fealty.

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. You do realize the name of this forum right?

[whatchamacallit]

71. Save your armband for the weak minded n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. I have no armband...sorry to disappoint you!

I am here because I support Democrats...not to bash them...how about you?

[whatchamacallit]

74. I support progressive politicians

which has traditionally meant democrats. That said, I don't vote against my principles for anyone.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. So who are you saying does around here?

I vote my own best interest...

by the way....Hillary Clinton calls herself Progressive....YMMV

[whatchamacallit]

79. I'm not

but if you believe a (D) guarantees progressive representation, I've got some Joe Liebermans and Zell Millers to sell you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Uh Zell Miller? and Joe Lieberman is independent...

Zell has been gone since 2005! Living in the past are we?

[whatchamacallit]

83. Nice obfuscation

Joe was a democrat, but you knew that. There are plenty of current DINOs, but you knew that too.

[JEB]

84. Joe was the fucking vice presidential cadidate for the Democrats

and probably cost more votes than Nader.

[whatchamacallit]

88. VR wants to wish that democrat into the cornfield

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. WAS not IS....

Living in the past....

Half the Blue Dogs got defeated by Teabaggers last midterm...now is the time to work HARDER!

[whatchamacallit]

87. "Was not Is" is a meaningless distinction in the context of our conversation

but you knew that. Lol.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. No it's not...and No I don't

appreciate you don't put your words into my mouth...um thnx!

[sabrina 1]

140. You do realize what that name means, don't you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. Yes I do...the real question is...do YOU?

and a pack of others around hanging around this thread....

[JEB]

68. We should be thankful for our whistle blowers

and the truths they reveal that can help our nation improve itself. Instead, we persecute, prosecute and demonize.

[bluestate10]

73. I place loyalty to ideas and an interest in people above all else. Right now, the only party

that give a shit about every day people is the Democratic party. You are free to follow your "principles" and vote third party and elect republicans if you want, I can't live with myself if I made the same choice knowing what is at stake.

[LWolf]

75. I guess it's okay, then,

that positions and actions on issues always trump party loyalty for me. Regardless of how that is perceived by many at DU.

[MsPithy]

77. Don't forget, misogyny.

Authoritarian societies love misogyny.

[msanthrope]

92. Yeah---I'll remember that the next time the pro-Assangists tell me how the rapist in the

Ecuadorian Embassy shouldn't have to face a Swedish court.

[MsPithy]

112. Non sequitur.

[KauaiK]

90. I've been gone all day, but bvar22 is correct

Read your history. If you don't learn your history you a doomed to repeated (w/ apologies to George Santanya). If you want current selections, try In the Garden of Beasts or The Perfect Nazi. Both non-fiction.

[quinnox]

96. thanks, great recommendations

just checked out those books on Amazon, and they both look really good.

[mythology]

106. It's simplistic understanding of history to say that it repeats itself

Santanya wasn't a historian. He was an essayist, a philosopher. If I want to understand history, I go to historians.

Edmund Morgan, one of the most respected American historians, held that history doesn't repeat itself. Why? Because it's easy to point to a few things believed to be held in common and say that obviously that's the answer. The original post is an example of this. It claims that authoritarian regimes all have characteristics X, Y and Z and all result in failure. But that doesn't account for other governments who also have those same characteristics. It doesn't account for many countries that have successfully gone from governments that could tolerate no dissent to ones that do. It's the distinct details of a given situation that determine how it turns out. Not a handful of cherry picked examples.

For example, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and Wilson passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, but the U.S. survived those mistakes, both of which are far more significant than anything the government has done to trouble Edward Snowden's life.

[bobduca]

110. Yeah this is all about what the govt. is doing to Snowden's life...

and has nothing to do with illegal surveilllance approved en masse by a rubber stamp court of judges hand selected by the previous REPUBLICAN regime's most nefarious supreme court appointment, the leader of the village of teh damned himself, John Roberts.

[on point]

91. FYI: This is also source for term political correctness

[MannyGoldstein]

102. Fortunately, that can't happen today.

Because we know better.

[KoKo]

111. And...there was the long McCarthy and Hoover Era in recent history

of many of us DU'ers who have some memories...of that time...even as kids..

Thanks for this post!

[Rex]

115. And funny how people forget the BFEE was real and fucked us up totally.

They just want to move on to the next authoritarian regime I guess.

[Enthusiast]

117. Kicked and Recommended!

What you say is the absolute truth, bvar22.

[unreadierLizard]

120. yep

We've always been at war with Eastasia!

It's different now that our guy does it!

And so on and so forth.

[Bobbie Jo]

121. What a load.

However.....

Props for the use of the perverted Godwin variation. Very creative.

[GoneFishin]

123. K & R

[Puzzledtraveller]

127. K&R!!!

[NaturalHigh]

128. I seem to remember reading something about that.

Didn't a lot of the party loyalists end up dying in gulags anyway?

[lapfog_1]

154. Of societies that have ended, please name one that hasn't ended badly?

authoritarian or not.

I can't think of a single one.

Greeks?, Egyptians?, Native Americans (mostly ended)?, Romans? Various Chinese dynasties? Aztecs and Incas? French Monarchy? French Republic?

Maybe there are some, but the vast majority of societies that end, do so badly do they not?

What, exactly, are you warning us of?

[bvar22]

157. That is an interesting point.

Some of the ones you mentioned didn't start as Authoritarian, but certainly ended that way.
Perhaps a trend toward ever stricter Authoritarianism is a symptom of a declining society?

[lapfog_1]

158. Yes, as societies descend to chaos or decline

conservatives usually take power.

there is a desire to "return to the good ole days" and people are willing to give up any freedoms for the promise of previous wealth and glory (even if just imagined). This is a conservative value.

Authoritarians always find fertile ground in such times.

However, I would submit that while societies in decline can promote authoritarianism, the opposite is not always true.

[woo me with science]

159. K&R

[jsr]

161. True.

[Progressive dog]

162. The use of whistle blower began with My Lai in the sixties

Still afraid to name that historical country?