Key arguments that Trump and MAGA made and still make against basically the entire left are that (i) the left is radical and authoritarian, and by implication (ii) this alleged authoritarianism by the left justifies it by Trump and MAGA. False beliefs of allegedly radical left authoritarianism are deeply embedded in the authoritarian MAGA movement and also many or most conservatives outside of MAGA. At present, very few of those MAGA minds can be changed. Maybe that will change somewhat after radical right authoritarianism starts to take hold and bite.
A hypothetical example
Claim 1: Progressives need to remember that conservatives and especially social conservatives view the progressives as the authoritarians. When the employer or education establishment was forcing them to bend the knee to black lives matters, and same sex marriage, conservatives were viewing it as the heavy hand of the government.
Response 1: One can argue that most MAGA people do not really understand what authoritarianism is or what democracy is. One can argue that a major factor is that decades of divisive, polarizing radical right authoritarian propaganda has deceived and manipulated tens of millions of Americans. Take this for example:
Q: Compare the seriousness and depth of authoritarianism in Trump, Project 2025 and the MAGA movement to the authoritarianism of progressives alleged by conservatives and other critics.
A: The comparison of authoritarianism between Trump/Project 2025/MAGA and progressives reveals significant differences in scope, intent, and potential impact.
Trump/Project 2025/MAGA AuthoritarianismProject 2025 and associated MAGA policies propose sweeping changes that would significantly expand executive power and reshape American governance. Consolidating presidential control over federal agencies, including independent ones like the DOJ and FBI. Reclassifying tens of thousands of civil servants as political appointees to replace them with loyalists. .... Imposing conservative Christian values in government and society. .... Weaponizing government agencies against political opponents. These proposals would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the U.S. government, potentially undermining democratic norms, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
Progressive Policies Criticized as AuthoritarianConservative critics often label certain progressive policies as authoritarian, including:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, expanded social welfare programs, environmental regulations, gun control measures, and COVID-19 public health mandates.
However, these policies generally work within existing democratic and constitutional frameworks, rather than seeking to fundamentally restructure government power. They aim to address social issues through legislation and established governmental processes, not by concentrating power in the executive branch or dismantling core democratic institutions. (emphasis added)
Scope: Project 2025 proposes a comprehensive overhaul of government structure and function, while progressive policies typically focus on specific social or economic issues.
Institutional Impact: MAGA proposals seek to fundamentally alter the balance of power between branches of government, while progressive policies generally work within existing institutional structures.
Democratic Norms: Project 2025 explicitly challenges many longstanding democratic norms and institutions, whereas progressive policies, even when controversial, typically operate within established democratic processes.
Individual Rights: MAGA proposals include rolling back certain civil liberties and protections, particularly for marginalized groups, while progressive policies often aim to expand protections for these groups.
While both sides accuse each other of authoritarianism, the scale and nature of the changes proposed by Project 2025 and associated MAGA policies represent a more significant departure from traditional American governance and democratic norms than typical progressive policy proposals. (emphasis added)
Q2: Did the black lives matter movement hurt or kill conservatives?
A2: Based on the search results provided, there is no evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement directly hurt or killed conservatives. The search results do not contain any information about Black Lives Matter protesters physically harming or killing conservative individuals.
In other words, progressives are not significantly authoritarian. But the politics that most Trump supporters have embraced, at least by voting for him, are authoritarian.
Claim 2: The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.
Response 2: It is doubtful that there is solid evidence to support any of those assertions. Here is some data that contradicts those implications and allegations:
Q: Are the following comments mostly true? The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.
A: The comments contain some accurate points but also include exaggerations and unsupported claims.
The claim of a 35% jump in homicide rates soon after the George Floyd incident is not supported by the provided search results. While there was an increase in homicides during this period, the exact percentage and direct causation are not verified.
There is evidence supporting an increase in traffic fatalities coinciding with reduced traffic enforcement. Experts attribute this to bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement.
The search results do not support claims about:
1. Specific numbers of additional homicides among Black individuals.
2. Direct causation between progressive policies and increased crime rates.
3. Motivations related to "hunting down thought criminals on the right."
These assertions appear to be opinions or speculations not backed by the provided information.
Q2: Did the bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement occur only in areas that liberals or progressives controlled, or was the phenomenon more widespread and included rural areas and conservative-controlled areas?
A2: The phenomenon of bad driving habits and reduced traffic enforcement during the pandemic was widespread and not limited to areas controlled by liberals or progressives. .... In summary, the increase in bad driving habits and the decline in traffic enforcement were widespread issues affecting both urban and rural areas across the political spectrum, rather than being confined to liberal or progressive jurisdictions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note the serious asymmetry in dealing with false information and false beliefs. False allegations and implications are usually short and easy to assert. It is rarely backed up with links to data sources. Claim 1 = 48 words, but Response 1 = 484 words, with a link to the information sources. Claim 2 = 73 words, but Response 2 = 342 words, with a link to the information sources.
In short, falsehoods, deceit via opacity and DFS (dark free speech) generally have a sedrious advantage in their power of persuasion compared to honest speech. They are short, emotion-provoking and almost completely devoid of cognitive dissonance due to inconvenient facts or reasoning. In short DFS is a lot more fun and easy than honest speech.
In my firm opinion, DFS is the most potent and effective weapon that American radical right authoritarianism brings to bear against secular democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, transparency in government and inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning.
