The catch-22 for
authoritarians is that people everywhere are willing to commit to honest labor in exchange for these same goods.
Take the slogan of one major American newspaper: "Democracies die in darkness." It represents a simplistic answer to the rise of
authoritarian and populist forces around the globe.
Despite these immense investments, however, observers -including Nye himself - have scratched their heads, wondering why these
authoritarian regimes continue to suffer a deep soft-power deficit, even as they have grown more assertive internationally.
New research in Public Opinion Quarterly identifies what could be a significant factor fueling this rise: Americans'
authoritarian tendencies.
It may be premature, however, to conclude that
authoritarians fear interactions with other people, or have a general predisposition toward fear.
Law argues for the latter, Liberalism with a capital 'L', when it comes to freedom of thought and moral education, while simultaneously holding a more
authoritarian (with a small 'a') position as far as freedom of action is concerned.
The book, which is dedicated to Goldwater, draws heavily on the work of the social psychologist Bob Altemeyer, the creator of a scale for measuring "right-wing
authoritarian" (RWA) tendencies.
Coercive
authoritarian leadership uses force to maintain control.
Destructiveness and cynicism, with their vilification of the human, were considered, probably correctly, decided traits of rightist
authoritarians in 1950.
This is one of the few mentions of the way many famous Modern architects were prepared to lick the boots of dictators and
authoritarian regimes in the inter-war periods (and in the occupied countries during the Second World War).
(31.) The model implies that rich
authoritarians outspend democracies, but we want to avoid overemphasizing the point, since the gap between the two regime types at high income levels is relatively small.
Even though they pursue political power by advocating for good public policies, when voters perceive misbehavior, elected leaders are more easily removed from office (whether by scandal or by vote) than
authoritarians. Meanwhile,
authoritarian leaders need to amass ever-larger amounts of personal wealth to stow in rainy-day, discretionary funds--ideally located in democracies, like the United States or UK, where markets are deep, fluid, and the fund is protected by the rule of law.
In these respects, these 'good'
authoritarians are not so very different than 'bad'
authoritarians such as Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
In 26 surveys, they were outright majorities of 52 to 65 percent, while Conditional
Authoritarians were at most 27 percent.
The following extended passage from 'The
Authoritarians' (freely available online) is from the conclusion of his chapter on '
Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism.'
