Americans Are Getting Too Comfortable With Thought Control

Professor's column goes viral ... and its message will send chills through you: The New Totalitarians Are Here: http://t.co/mpOh6mbY2j

— The College Fix (@CollegeFix) July 8, 2015

There’s a basic difference in the traditions of political science between “authoritarians” and “totalitaritarians.” People throw both of these words around, but as is so often the case, they’re using words they may not always understand. They have real meaning, however, and the difference between them is important.

...It is not enough for these Americans to say: “I have had my day in court and prevailed.” In effect, they now add: “You do not have the right to hold a different opinion, even if you lose in the public arena. You may not hold on to your belief as a minority view, or even as a private thought. And if you persist and still disagree, I will attack you without quarter and set others on you to deprive you of your status in your profession, of your standing in your community, and even of your livelihood.”

This attitude promises social warfare without end, because there is no peace to be had until the opposing side offers a sincere and unconditional surrender. It means that the people on the Left taking bakers to court, de-Africanizing Justice Thomas, and making Young an accomplice to rape will not be satisfied with winning. For the new totalitarians, prevailing in the courts or at the ballot boxes isn’t enough if there’s still a suspicion that anyone, anywhere, might still be committing thoughtcrime.

The new totalitarians are here http://t.co/6DTqTXNbOf

— HotAir.com (@hotairblog) July 7, 2015

Jonathan Turley: The left’s indifference to Obama’s executive power grabs is beginning to border on a cult of personality

◼ “Beginning”? - Allahpundit/HotAir

There’s nothing here that you haven’t heard before if you watched him testify before Congress in December but it’s still worth watching for two reasons. One is his tone, which has grown darker and more apocalyptic since then. More than once here he warns that Obama’s “enablers” are destined to rue the fact that they remained silent “during this period.” Precedents are being set that will be built on by future presidents of both parties; for all the complaining about executive overreach by Democrats circa 2006 and Republicans today, the cold realities of power are what they are. I’m tempted to say that it was O’s latest unlawful delay to ObamaCare’s employer mandate that soured Turley’s mood, but I don’t think that’s it. I think it was the State of the Union, where Obama embraced bypassing Congress as formal policy. Look out for the phrase “borders on authoritarianism.”

The other reason to watch is his debunking near the end of the “power of the purse” strategy to check Obama. Mike Lee told the Weekly Standard two days ago that that’s the way he thinks Congress should rein in the president: They’re not going to roll the political dice on impeachment and they can’t sue for lack of standing, but they can go ahead and cut off Obama’s money in areas where he’s exceeded his constitutional boundaries — in theory. The problem with that approach, says Turley, is that O’s not above unilaterally moving money around that’s been appropriated for other purposes.

◼ Jonathan Turley, principled liberal - neoneocon

Jonathan Turley is a liberal star, a constitutional law professor with impeccable credentials:

Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. He is the youngest person to receive an academic chair in the school’s history. He runs the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS), the Environmental Law Clinic, and the Environmental Legislation Project.

Prior to joining the George Washington University, he was one of the youngest professors to be offered tenure at the Tulane University Law School.

But Turley has an interesting quirk that makes him unusual in another way: he thinks for himself.

In search of liberal Browncoats

◼ I’m not going to hold my breath waiting. Because in the current American political environment, liberalism and authoritarianism are synonymous. - John Hayward/Red State @Doc_o

A few days ago, I was chatting with a friend of liberal persuasion about the cult-classic TV series ◼ “Firefly” – which, particularly in its concluding theatrical film, is one of pop culture’s strongest parables about libertarianism and rebellion against authority. If you’re unfamiliar with the show, it was a science-fiction program about a space-faring band of lovable rogues, some of whom fought in a losing rebellion against their totalitarian government. The rebels were known as “Browncoats,” which also became a nickname for fans of the show.

My liberal friend, noting that the creator of “Firefly,” Joss Whedon, is outspokenly of the Left himself, suggested that perhaps liberal and conservative anti-authoritarians might have more common ground than they realize. It’s an interesting common ground upon which to begin a dialogue. If we agree on reducing the level of authority over our lives, surely we could set aside some of our differences over why we “aim to misbehave,” to borrow a memorable “Firefly” quote. Or, at the very least, we could agree that we don’t want any more authoritarian control, regardless of whether the prospective tyrants claim they would use their new power for causes of the Left or Right.

I’ll be more than happy to join in that dialogue, just as soon as someone points me at the liberal Browncoats. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting. Because in the current American political environment, liberalism and authoritarianism are synonymous. Nothing about the Left’s agenda is a suggestion. Obedience is mandatory, and escape is impossible. When a person of liberal inclination loses interest in using compulsive force, he stops being liberal, under the current definitions of the term....

Many of the people who identify themselves as “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” are essentially saying that they believe social issues should be topics of discussion, rather than matters of compulsive obedience. ”Keep the Democrats out of our wallets, and the Republicans out of our bedrooms,” as another friend of mine is wont to put it.

But in case you haven’t noticed, the Democrats are in our bedrooms now, too. They’ve got a past-due bill for other peoples’ contraceptives they expect you to pay, and they don’t want to hear about your religious conscience. The fashionable new argument that refusing to subsidize something equals “denying access” is inherently compulsive. You’re not allowed to refuse, no matter what, because the elites have decided what its good for us, and everyone is required to accept their decision. If that’s not “authoritarianism,” I don’t know what is....