Authoritarianism as an ideal type

[Mark Graber]

But see, RAE, et al., EQUALITIES, making, I believe, the same claim with
respect to "equality" as Professor Volokh makes with "authority." (and I
often think "liberty" and "equality" are thrown around too loosely on
the list).

Mark A. Graber

>>> VOLOKH at MAIL.LAW.UCLA.EDU 10/29/02 13:25 PM >>>
        "Authoritarian" is not simply a contested term -- contested to
the
point of meaninglessness, and undefined in this discussion.  It is a
pejorative, often used by the Left to score rhetorical points against
the
Right, often accusing it of doing the very same thing that the Left sees
as
quite proper when people on the Left do it.  In this respect, it's quite
similar to "un-American."  If conservatives started talking about how
Gore
or Carter or Clinton or someone else had "un-American" tendencies, I
take it
that many liberals would see the point, and not just think "Oh, well,
un-American, that's just as contested as equality or liberty, let's just
debate whether in fact the Democrats are being un-American."  Both
"authoritarian" and "un-American," as they are generally used, are terms
of
political name-calling, not helpful constitutional analysis.

        Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Graber [mailto:mgraber at GVPT.UMD.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:19 AM
> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Authoritarianism as an ideal type
>
>
> May I suggest that there is nothing particularly
> authoritarian or anti-authoritarian in efforts to centralize
> power.  Early liberals tended to be committed to centralizing
> power in the nation state in order to overcome what they
> perceived were the authoritarian practices of local lords and
> the church.  And presumably few on the left (or
> right) would think wanting a central government strong enough
> to dismantle Jim Crow is particularly authoritarian.
> Professor Balkin is more accurate when he notes there are
> various authoritarian ways that are frequently used to
> achieve and maintain national power, but these means are
> often used to achieve or maintain local power (think of the
> Klan of 1870, which was deepely concerned about maintaining
> local power, but I suspect had little concern with race
> relations in Massachusetts).
>
> In short, how authoritarian efforts to centralize government
> are depends in part on how authoritarian you think local
> practices are.  And, again, there is not neutral answer to
> this question.  But, in a delayed response to Eugene, there
> is no neutral meaning of equality or liberty either (which
> standing alone, in my judgment, never advance discussion).
> All we can do is debate whether Bush administration practices
> violate rights (a contested term) or so violate rights as to
> demonstrate an authoritarian tendency (an equally contested term).
>
> Mark A. Graber
> mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu
>