You disagree with the researchers' definition of authoritarianism.

BTW, is there an error in "The election of Donald Trump has created""

Exactly what ewv wrote. I would have taken a whole screen of text trying to say these three sentences, and I would have had one omitted/wrong word in each paragraph.

"did try to get rid of Obamacare"
I'm not saying he did not take action. I'm saying he does not know or care what he thinks about policy ideas. He cares about attention, which comes in the form of "winning", making people angry, or making people look bad. His policy idea on healthcare was PPACA was awful, and he was going to replace it with something similar but much more effective. He said it turned out creating such a program was complicated. "Who knew?" he said.

"he wants all around free trade. His duty ideas are a negotiating tactic"
This is one issue that he's been consistent on and followed through. He doesn't want free tree. He wants protectionism, or what protectionists call "fair trade". I disagree so strongly with protectionism that I find it hard to evaluate him on this. In general, I think this is one example of him having an actual policy idea, and he followed through on it.

"caved on Patriot act powers,"
You think he has an opinion on this and he's going against his opinion for political reasons?

"He wanted to get rid of DACA"
I'm less than knowledgeable about this. It seems to me like he had the reasonable position that he wanted to Congress to address it because that's what the Constitution requires. I didn't follow the ups and downs, but it seems like he started out campaigning on really stupid racist arguments. Then he seemed to be saying Congress should act. Then I heard he was going work with them not only to DACA but on a path to citizenship for millions of people who are here illegally. Then he bounced back to the mindless racists crap. Democrats jumped on at the first sign of he implied racism, as if they wanted the "issue" more than to resolve the problem of 15 million people living here illegally.. And nothing gets done. We're back to the same policy of looking the other way.

"If trump cant protect our freedoms, even a little bit, this country isn't going to be saved from collectivism. "
I hope you're wrong about this because I am confident President Trump cannot protect freedoms. He campaigned on breaking the law. In a debate when the moderator said something he proposed was against the law and Constitution, he said he'd get 'em to do it, not that he would work with Congress to get a law the courts find constitutional; just that he's a strongman negotiator who can get people do operate outside the law. He's the very opposite of protecting freedoms.

I am counting on other things to reduce collectivism. There're very few politicians running on this, so it won't come from the top down. It has to come from people telling the Congressmen to remember individual freedoms on issues as they arise.

I fail to follow the above, but it seems wrong to me. The difference between the mainstream left and right is that the right's policies allow the private sector's mechanisms for supporting people and ideas to produce what spontaneous order it can, while the left is all about either deliberately suppressing or hijacking those mechanisms.

Trump is authoritarian, but is cashing in on its acceptance as the "man on the white horse"; his election did not create the trend.

Some of what he does happens to be good and some not, but none of the good has been motivated by supporting the rights of the individual. It's all about what he emotionally decrees as best for a collective economy.

A "study" that concludes "The election of Donald Trump has created [sic] an authoritarian moment" and that less than 15% of the "most authoritarian" voted for Clinton is seriously flawed.

A false major premise helps explain why: "Those respondents who choose respect for elders, good manners, obedience and being well-behaved are rated more authoritarian", as selected from the false alternatives of children with "independence or respect for their elders; curiosity or good manners; self-reliance or obedience; and being considerate or well-behaved." Equating well-behaved children with "authoritarian" while implying that the four choices for children are mutually exclusive explains how the left can pretend that ANTIFA and Clinton are "not authoritarian".

I think he did try to get rid of Obamacare- but he caved into the idea of "replacing" it. Even that didnt work as his own party wouldnt support it.

I think he wants free trade, but he wants all around free trade. His duty ideas are a negotiating tactic which may yet work, who knows. If he just caves and leaves the tariffs there, I would say he caved to the idea of getting more money for the government.

He totally caved on Patriot act powers, and going after Snowden (I expected him to pardon snowden and let him come back to the USA and help to protect us FROM the government)

He wanted to get rid of DACA, but eventually caved to allow even 18 million of potential DACA people stay. Even that was not enough caving to enable him to get anywhere.

I would say that the entire system is fu&k$% up. If trump cant protect our freedoms, even a little bit, this country isnt going to be saved from collectivism. Look to Venezuela, as we are going there fast.

the last thing they want are free, liberty-minded, independent thinking individuals...who identify themselves as individuals...divide and conquer...

I agree. Both sides ramp up their “unnessary evil.” Rarely is it discussed much less debated how much of even the “necessary evil” is actually necessary.

Are you saying he has specific things he wants to do, but he has to say some things that appear contradictory to appease other politicians to move his agenda forward?
I used to think things like this, and I came to see him as random. Does he want US to spend less on defense of NATO countries? When does he believe in deal-making protectionism and when does he believe in letting market participants alone? Should PATRIOT Act powers be reduced? Should the fed encourage, discourage, or stay out of asset forfeiture? Should the Fed adopt a tighter monetary policy?
He doesn't know or care? He never thought about it. He just knows what gets morbid attention. He knows what to put on an infomercial to make someone stop channel surfing to gawk.

His critics and supporters alike speculate on how it could all be head-fakes in some complicated chess game. They think he went along with increasing deficits because that was the one move all the career politicians didn't leave covered. They think his lurid tweets are timed to cover up politically unpopular policies.

I can't rule the idea that he's smarter than his public persona, but I don't see evidence of it.

I see most mainstream politicians as not that radically different [from one another]. They accept a bipartisan consensus of the government managing things, taking responsibility for the economy, and gov't spending remaining a big fraction of GDP.

I would also say he is being affected by all the obstructionism out there. Maybe he is trying to get SOMETHING done and it involves pandering to liberals. It’s a shame though

I stopped reading after the very first sentence made no sense: "I see most mainstream politicians and are not that radically different." Different from what? Or is the second part of the sentence missing a noun -- "..politicians and [ something missing here? ] "

I am tired of inadequate proofreading! And I am finished with wasting my time trying to figure out what the author meant to say. You are being very rude to your readers not to take the time to read over your post before posting it!

A simple-minded discussion of authoritarianism. I find it strange that some seem to characterize a powerful head of state as an authoritarian figure. Trump may be full of himself, and a bully at times, but I'm more results-oriented, and I see his actions as fostering more independence than his nanny state predecessor. Lifting often irrational regulations backed more by bias than science is a sensible step; lifting the medical insurance mandate restored the right of individuals to make their own health care decisions; revising tax codes to return more money to the individual taxpayer. These are hardly the actions of an authoritarian.

Establishment Republicans and Democrats have been drifting toward the all powerful state, which is why the indivdualists in the Tea Party created an uprising among conservatives. Establishment Democrats have drifted so far toward socialism and overbearing state control that the Communist Party of the USA has embraced Democrat candidates for President, rather than field their own. Electing Trump was a rebellion against an authoritarian state. People recognized he would likely be somewhat of a bull in the Washington china shop, but felt it was necessary to loosen the ever tightening grip of establishment parties.

Just in order to cut through all the gobbledegook the basics are always the same wip away all the non essentials of any proposition until you get to the bare bones and if what's left is "Have the government do it", you know that it will give you less freedom to take care of yourself as opposed to Washington telling you what to do. It doesn't matter what the issue is, it always boils down the same way.. You may think I'm being over ly simple but the difference between good and evil, freedom and slavery, Capitalism and any other economic system always gets simple in the end. Everything else is window dressing to make the the unacceptable palatable.

"I am beginning to wonder about [President Trump]."
I said since he was a candidate he was a Rorschach blot that people see their desired policies in. I suppose that's true for any good politician or showman.

After he was elected, I decided he was just attention seeking. I also think he may or may not have some kind of problem with drugs/alcohol. In any case, he seems to say one thing and then contradict himself, for not reason. It's not like he caved to political pressure. He just runs is mouth without thinking.

The questions are posed in such a manner as to prevent the idea the well behaved and curious can be and should be the same person. Being well behaved does not preclude being curious. It is interesting that the article also concludes that if you are well behaved you are authoritarian rather than the correct conclusion that if you are well behaved you don't need an authority. Both sides of the current political aisle want the same thing, to be the authority in charge and determine how people will live and what they can buy with their time. Not interested in either side.

I say it's all a false dichotomy. I suffer along with the rest of humanity at the supposed necessity to make such a choice. I believe I exhibit some, most, all, or none of those choices. I have been on all sides of the partisan divide, see valid points in both, and think the most thrive on division because it seems to give their pitiful lives some possible meaning.
And that's my mean old grump for the day. Now I'll go searching once more for unicorns and rainbows.

The differences among politicians in my opinion are rooted in HOW FAST we get to complete government control, not WHETHER we should have government control over our lives. All I thought we would get from Trump is a slowing down of the march to socialism- he would stand in the way (to a degree). Lately he has been caving into liberal pressure more and more. I am beginning to wonder about him.

The answer is to not comply. If that means going Galt, so be it.

Well said, CG and OUC.

That is a revealing social commentary.

I agree completely, but if I had to chose which is more important,they're close ties but I'd say "independence, self-reliance, curiosity, and being considerate". There are people who want me to hate people who chose "respect for elders, good manners, and good behavior," even thought I certainly value those things.

"keeping us safe or care for "the children","
Yes. They no longer explicitly save if it saves one child, but that that's the idea. If the premise is anything is justified by saving one child, you can justify imprisoning everyone.

All those "or's" should be "and's"....of course, that would require parents to be grown up and posses those attributes also.