Why has America trended (generally) authoritarian over the last 100 years?

[The Free North]

Regardless of the party or administration, it seems the only constant in politics over the past century has been the gradual encroachment of the federal government into new spheres of our lives. While we can divide things into 'left' and 'right', it merely muddles the overall trend that we have seen a dramatic increase in authoritarian policy and legislation.

Is man simply naturally inclined to want more power?

Have we as a society grown too complacent and have simply accepted this?

Is it simply inevitable for a democratic government?

Is our foreign policy to blame?

[bedstuy]

That's not really true.  100 years ago, the Supreme Court was less protective of civil liberties.  In fact, wiretapping wasn't even considered a search.  And, since the 1970s, large sectors of our economy have become less regulated. 

So, I don't see any consistent trend. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Tell me, CTRattlesnake: are you up on who Eugene Debs was, where he ran his campaign from in 1920, and why he was there?

[Blue3]

That's not true at all. We were much more authoritarian 100 years ago.

Jim Crow laws, suppression of women, child labor, alcohol prohibition, the draft, control of the railways, active government suppression of the anti-WWI movements, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, newspapers and mail that were antiwar were banned from being delivered, you could be arrested and imprisoned for criticizing the presidential administration, mass arrests of labor activists, heavy industrial and antitrust regulations, the blatant imperialism of McKinley, etc.

[Lief 🗽]

Uh, 150 years ago we were so authoritarian that an entire race of millions of people was legally enslaved and bought and sold as property. In the 1910s and 1940s, people were imprisoned en masse for speaking against the government, or even being the same ethnicity as a country we were fighting a war against. Others in this thread have given a host of other examples. America is a lot less "authoritarian" that it used to be.

[barfbag]

We've grown so much in population that political problems such as affordable health insurance, environmental pollution, energy conservation, and retirement have come to surface. The more problems with a nation, the more political responses are provided. As for our nation amongst the world, it's important to have an educated population who can help multiple sectors of the economy while providing infrastructure in times of recession in order to prevent depression. The greater the population, the more political things get. Good old fashioned libertarian style governance while ideal, is no longer practical in today's day and age.

Politicians have better access to the public and vice-versa today than ever before. Promises are made to get elected to office. "Vote for me and I'll lower the cost of health insurance, make sure you can retire, and the weather will get better because I'll stop global warming." Today's politicians are like the kids in 6th grade who promise more days off, longer lunches, and extra field trips if they're elected class president. Unrealistic promises have resulted from the access politicians have to the public. The end result is when promises are kept, government gets bigger.

[Sbane]

I would guess CTRattlesnake would consider laws against child labor and slavery to be authoritarian. I also would think he would be against the civil rights act that stopped a lot of those Jim Crow laws.

[barfbag]

I would guess CTRattlesnake would consider laws against child labor and slavery to be authoritarian. I also would think he would be against the civil rights act that stopped a lot of those Jim Crow laws.

Please identify at which exact point CTRattlesnake said that authoritarian was always bad in every single instance. He didn't and it's not bad in every single instance.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think we've seen generally a progressive consolidation of power in the Executive and the Presidency - though there have been interruptions and resistance to this trend, such as in the backlash from Watergate.  We may be seeing the formation of such a reaction against Executive power right now.

[pbrower2a]

I think we've seen generally a progressive consolidation of power in the Executive and the Presidency - though there have been interruptions and resistance to this trend, such as in the backlash from Watergate.  We may be seeing the formation of such a reaction against Executive power right now.

Even scarier is the accretion of power in the hands of tycoons, executives, and big landowners who all-but-buy stooges as legislators and use lobbyists as enforcers. 

[ingemann]

Regardless of the party or administration, it seems the only constant in politics over the past century has been the gradual encroachment of the federal government into new spheres of our lives. While we can divide things into 'left' and 'right', it merely muddles the overall trend that we have seen a dramatic increase in authoritarian policy and legislation.

Is man simply naturally inclined to want more power?

Have we as a society grown too complacent and have simply accepted this?

Is it simply inevitable for a democratic government?

Is our foreign policy to blame?

Maybe it's time for you to move out of your parent's basement, get a job and join the real world.
Because that the only way I can see you can lack that degree of connection to reality. USA is on every parameter a freer and better society than a century ago. Black people have the right to vote, political opponents of the establishment are not thrown in prison and companies are not allowed to hire thugs to terrorised their workers.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily, although those that are driven by such power lust will inevitably be attracted toward institutions in which they can exercise their desire for power over others. The overwhelming majority of men simply desire a secure position for themselves and their immediate family, which enables the power hungry to offer the masses security in exchange for their liberties with relative ease.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A century and a half of socialized education has likely aided this transition, by conditioning the populace from a young age that the current regime is an authority that should not be questioned. The culture of dependency that the welfare state has engendered has also created a positive feedback loop, in that meager "benefits" are provided toward a majority of the populace, which have become unfathomable for them to live without, even though they would have been better off had they never had the resources to pay for these "benefits" stolen from them in the first place. Most people simply can't imagine that a service could be provided through voluntary transaction once the government has nationalized such a service (airline security being one of the more recent of a plethora of examples that could be given).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More so than for other forms of government. In order to reach a position of power in a democratic state, one must actively campaign for such a role, which as mentioned earlier tends to attract the more power hungry among us. Additionally, democracy enables those candidates to win who can make promises to the majority (or more often influential minorities) at the expense of everyone else. For example, Boeing is more incentivized to ensure the reelection of a politician that offers them a $50 billion no-bid contract than anyone else is to ensure the defeat of a politician that adds $167 to their individual share of the national debt.

Monarchy might be more successful than democracy at limiting the trend toward authoritarianism, given that a monarch, unlike a politician, usually assumes his position of power through dumb luck rather than active effort, and must only placate the masses to the extent that they don't terminate his rule-for-life, rather than having to do so on a regular cycle. Additionally, such a long term of office creates an incentive for a monarch to look toward the long-term consequences of actions, rather than how they will impact the immediate election cycle. Additionally, if the ruling party claims a smaller domain, this should also inhibit the trend toward authoritarianism, as the ruled can free to a less oppressive regime with greater ease. Ultimately, though, the best option to thwart authoritarianism is to eliminate the anachronism that security should be provided by territorial monopolies, which would be the ultimate conclusion of a desire for a collection of small monarchies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the extent that it is easier to get the masses united against a common enemy when it is an external bogeyman than one that might live alongside them, yes. Politicians can take advantage of people's primal instinct to be more fearful of those different from us to get people to trade more of their liberties for the illusion of security from external threats. Additionally, this creates an incentive for those that desire power to be more bellicose in order to create more bogeymen to scare the public with. In other words, I believe that the aggressive foreign policy is a proximate cause, but an ultimate consequence, of the currently ruling regime. A trend toward smaller states would abate this by creating a greater sense of economic interdependence between the state and its neighbors, as well as by limiting the supply of young males that can be conscripted/brainwashed into joining the regime's legion of soldiers. Ultimately, the best solution for this dilemma would be to enable intraterritorial competition between security services. War is expensive, and any private entity that wished to wage war against another would have to raise money from their subscribers, rather than diffuse costs by making each member of the populace pay a comparatively small sum, or by debasing the currency, or by forcing future members of the populace to pay a slightly larger sum. In order to stay solvent, the incentive would be for mediation of disputes rather than brute force.

[SPC]

That's not really true.  100 years ago, the Supreme Court was less protective of civil liberties.  In fact, wiretapping wasn't even considered a search.  And, since the 1970s, large sectors of our economy have become less regulated. 

So, I don't see any consistent trend. 

Good to know that the Supreme Court hasn't made such recent rulings as deciding that a provision can simultaneously be a tax and a penalty, that DNA can be taken without a warrant, that a farmer does not actually own his seeds, that surveillance can be performed without probable cause, and that warrentless searches are permissible, among other issues.

USA is on every parameter a freer and better society than a century ago. Black people have the right to vote...

Good to know that having an equal right to vent my frustration through a slip of paper every two years is synonymous with personal liberty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are breathing sighs of relief.

I think we've seen generally a progressive consolidation of power in the Executive and the Presidency - though there have been interruptions and resistance to this trend, such as in the backlash from Watergate.  We may be seeing the formation of such a reaction against Executive power right now.

Even scarier is the accretion of power in the hands of tycoons, executives, and big landowners who all-but-buy stooges as legislators and use lobbyists as enforcers. 

If the state were not as powerful, such individuals would be unable to lobby its members in order to acquire power itself.

alcohol prohibition...

As opposed to marijuana prohibition, cocaine prohibition, LSD prohibition, opium prohibition, etc.?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're free because enough individuals voluntary kill for the state? (Assuming that the Selective Service isn't used)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So nominal privatization of Amtrak is what makes us free?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same Espionage Act recently used to give Bradley Manning a life behind bars?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, the distinction between furtive and blatant imperialism makes a free society.

[bedstuy]

That's not really true.  100 years ago, the Supreme Court was less protective of civil liberties.  In fact, wiretapping wasn't even considered a search.  And, since the 1970s, large sectors of our economy have become less regulated. 

So, I don't see any consistent trend. 

Good to know that the Supreme Court hasn't made such recent rulings as deciding that a provision can simultaneously be a tax and a penalty, that DNA can be taken without a warrant, that a farmer does not actually own his seeds, that surveillance can be performed without probable cause, and that warrentless searches are permissible, among other issues.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

There are some issues where the Supreme Court has become less protective of civil liberties since the 1970s.  But, compare pre-Warren Court civil liberties jurisprudence to modern law.  The Supreme Court has become more protective of civil liberties in that period, there's no denying that.

[Beet]

Because when cars keep crashing and lights that tell people, by law, when they can go (green) and when they can't (red) can save lives, the human instinct is to pass a law.

And thus with so much of the complexity of the modern capitalist technocracy.

[The Free North]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More so than for other forms of government. In order to reach a position of power in a democratic state, one must actively campaign for such a role, which as mentioned earlier tends to attract the more power hungry among us. Additionally, democracy enables those candidates to win who can make promises to the majority (or more often influential minorities) at the expense of everyone else. For example, Boeing is more incentivized to ensure the reelection of a politician that offers them a $50 billion no-bid contract than anyone else is to ensure the defeat of a politician that adds $167 to their individual share of the national debt.

Monarchy might be more successful than democracy at limiting the trend toward authoritarianism, given that a monarch, unlike a politician, usually assumes his position of power through dumb luck rather than active effort, and must only placate the masses to the extent that they don't terminate his rule-for-life, rather than having to do so on a regular cycle. Additionally, such a long term of office creates an incentive for a monarch to look toward the long-term consequences of actions, rather than how they will impact the immediate election cycle. Additionally, if the ruling party claims a smaller domain, this should also inhibit the trend toward authoritarianism, as the ruled can free to a less oppressive regime with greater ease. Ultimately, though, the best option to thwart authoritarianism is to eliminate the anachronism that security should be provided by territorial monopolies, which would be the ultimate conclusion of a desire for a collection of small monarchies.

Very good post overall, I would just like to comment and extend the conversation here a bit further.

I agree 100% with your analysis on democracy. I think ultimately, the destruction of our republican government through the direct election of senators has significantly harmed the system. However, I disagree with your ideas on Monarchy. Consolidating all of the power into the hands of an even smaller number of individuals is incredibly risky, even with the backing of a constitution. Ultimately, I think that democracy is a better route, and many of the problems you highlighted with democracy become more emphasized when you have only one monarch.

Ultimately, I believe we need term limits for all elected officials. Limiting people to 1 or 2 terms would significantly reduce the number of 'bad' power hungry people in washington. Without that type of reform we can hope for little in the way of change because people are always trying to grow their power.

[angus]

Have we as a society grown too complacent and have simply accepted this?

Sort of, but not quite.  It is due to the fact that society is structured in such a way that each individual acts in a way that optimizes his perceived benefit, regardless of the outcome to the general public.  It's also known as collective irrationality.  For a superficial treatment see, for example, Micromotives and Macrobehavior by Thomas C. Schelling, W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.  The government steps in and curbs this behavior in order to create what it thinks is a more level playing field.  We end up with federally-mandated minimum wage, overtime, child labor laws, and the like.  It is a trending authoritarianship of the federal government, but that wasn't the goal.

Technology also plays a role.  The war(s) on Terror, Drugs, and Obesity have all taken their tolls on the collective liberty.  All of this is aided by the ability to create an obsessive surveillance state.  See, for example, the many threads on drones, cameras, and general spying by the government.  Our own internal polls of posters suggests a resigned acceptance of such surveillance.

[SPC]

Because when cars keep crashing and lights that tell people, by law, when they can go (green) and when they can't (red) can save lives, the human instinct is to pass a law.

And thus with so much of the complexity of the modern capitalist technocracy.

Of course instinct isn't necessarily correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

The United States was a much freer place circa 1973 than it is 2013. The state is by its very nature and authoritarian beast and only retreats when organized forces force concessions from it. The United States began to remove some of the shackles beginning in the 1930s, reaction set in in the late 1940s and continued into the 1950s, more fully dismantled systems of oppression in the 1960s and into the 1970s, and then made an abrupt u-turn and re-established most of those systems of oppressive state control in the 1980s.

There is a clear and persistent trend however towards increased state snooping and control ever present, especially since neoliberalism became the order of the day in the 1980s. In the early 1970s, for example, many states lowered the drinking age, moved towards decriminalizing cannabis, reformed their labor laws for the better, enacted more generous welfare states, etc, as opposed to the early 2010s, where the New Jim Crow (aka the War on Drugs) has blown up our prisons (and only now are elites beginning to realize that), nanny-state municipal politicians attempt to criminalize smoking in public or in private and raise the attendant age or wage a war on soft drinks while completely ignoring the very real problems of poverty and low wages, labor laws are repealed or modified to strengthen corporate control of the workplace and generally erode the right of workers to a voice on the job, the welfare state is sequestered, privatized, or 'marketized' to pay parasitic middlemen, as in the case of Obamacare and Medicare Part D (and coming to a school near you!), etc.

I think it's pretty clear that the more economic freedom (and by that I mean real economic freedom, i.e. freedom from market relations, freedom to organize labor unions, the sort of stuff Roosevelt said in his Second Bill of Rights speech) brings into being personal freedom. You cannot have true freedom of speech if you limit freedom of speech to time off work -- just as you cannot have true freedom of the press if the press is so thoroughly dependent upon advertising that it reports more on the daily activities of Kim Kardashian than, say, the ongoing harassment, intimidation, and arrest of enemies of the state.

[Link]

The United States was a much freer place circa 1973 than it is 2013.

You really have to wonder what they are teaching in schools these days.

[barfbag]

The United States was a much freer place circa 1973 than it is 2013.

You really have to wonder what they are teaching in schools these days.

Health teachers are grading their students' knowledge of sexual education on how well they know their positions and nerve endings. Students are pairing up and the teacher walks around with the lights out. It's disgusting for parents to have to deal with this.

[badgate]

Wow, the standard high school Health class sure has changed since 2005.