
The new authoritarianism - lkrubner
http://www.voxeu.org/article/new-authoritarianism
======
MCRed
I spent 6 years outside the USA from 2008-2013.

I highly recommend everyone do this. Spend several years in Europe or South
America (the places I went.)

You will quickly come to see-- I expect-- just how much of the media inside
the USA is propaganda.

Everything from Law & Order to the nightly news is mostly pro-government
propaganda. (Supporting our politburo type government, not a dictatorship, but
in the past 100 years the one party has won every single election.)

But you gotta get outside the bubble to really see it.

~~~
jerf
"But you gotta get outside the bubble to really see it."

Actually, it's sufficient just to not be liberal, and to a lesser extent, be
neither liberal nor conservative. (But the liberal machine is much better
oiled and more generally competent, moaning about Fox News notwithstanding.)
It's hard to see propaganda that you currently agree with. (I do not exclude
myself from that general statement, it's just that what I find harder to see
is quite different than what the general US news is currently propagating.)

But I'd also observe that even standing outside the mainstream of US political
propaganda, I'm not convinced there's necessarily a cabal of insiders sitting
around in their smoke filled rooms figuring out how to "keep the masses in
line". I think instead you've got people figuring out how to push their
agendas, often in groups, and through a process of natural selection on the
agendas in question you end up with agendas that tend to satisfy people to
some extent and "keep them in line". You need not "conspire" to push fairly
popular ideologies on people, you need only let the adherents of those
ideologies do the things they naturally will do anyhow.

Edit: Look, downvoters, you might not like to hear it, but the US propaganda
machine is liberal, or at least, Democratic (if you are more liberal than the
Democrats and consider them "conservative"). Look at the political
affiliations of the media, Hollywood, the bureaucratic apparatus, the
University and academic system, and to believe that the propaganda system _isn
't_ Democratic is to believe that all of these things are peopled by 90%+
Democrats yet somehow transcend their political orientation to push... what,
exactly? It's not even close... it's not like it's 60-40, it's 90%+ plus on
every survey ever taken of those groups in recent times. Note my claim here is
an _objectively verifiable fact_ , not merely an abstract partisan snipe job.
Ask yourself, _what else would they be pushing_?

If you don't see this, well... it's probably because you're not seeing the
Democratic propaganda _as_ propaganda, leaving you seeing only what gets
through that isn't.

Further edit: Would someone care to post and explain the social mechanisms
whereby the media et al is populated by Democrats yet is pushing some other
form of propaganda on us all the time? Evidence would suggest it will get you
highly upvoted. (Personally I'd suggest the fact that people just downvote but
aren't posting suggests that this is either not possible, or very hard. This
probably means something.)

~~~
happyscrappy
I have noticed that advertisers motivations are laid bare when seen by people
outside the target audience. The underlying narrative, hidden from the target
group, is shockingly clear to non-targets. This car will make me sexy again,
this cereal will transport me to a magic land. I hate advertising.

~~~
pgeorgi
Watching ads with sound off can also help understand the hidden narrative

~~~
Crito
I suspect that if it were easy to merely filter out the music, but leave the
voice audio, that would work as well. I think of music as basically a brain
hack. It can affect your mental state against your own will, even if you are
aware of what it is doing and why.

An example of this is horror movies. Suspenseful scenes will be suspenseful,
even without any accompanying visuals. Even if you realize on an intellectual
level that the music is engineered to make you feel stressed or nervous, it is
exceedingly difficult to prevent yourself from feeling those things when you
hear the music.

Or maybe that's all just me. I am very wary of the use of music because of
this _(primarily in situations where somebody else is subjecting me to the
music; I 'll listen to it voluntarily when I get to control what it is, but I
try to avoid it as much as possible in any commercial setting)_.

The emergence of internet based video propaganda is particularly interesting
to me, since it typically bypasses copyright law to use whichever music it
pleases. Lots of popular pop songs being used in the background of blatant
propaganda videos. Here is one rather extreme example (in terms of music use,
not really content):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRqw0VE5SUY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRqw0VE5SUY)
My understanding is that the Russians made it.

------
calibraxis
Hilarious: _" This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian
leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended
periods (cf. Hugo Chavez)"_

Take former US president Jimmy Carter: _" As a matter of fact, of the 92
elections that we've monitored, I would say that the election process in
Venezuela is the best in the world."_
([http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/why-
us-...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/why-us-
dcemonises-venezuelas-democracy))

Compare to the US's Bush vs. Gore vote fiasco where a court decided the vote.
(And where the winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote. Not to
mention that most votes don't count anyway, due to swing states; and racist
voter disenfranchisement.) Also compare to the powerful Bush and Clinton
families.

These authors are from France and the US. If they were serious about improving
the world, they'd look at their immensely powerful militant nations. Not far
weaker ones.

~~~
Alex_Notchenko
Guriev is actually from Russia. He was exiled in 2013.
[http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/gurievs-
exile-...](http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/gurievs-exile-is-a-
huge-loss-for-russia/481652.html)

------
lkrubner
This part seems very true:

"Dictatorships are not what they used to be. The totalitarian tyrants of the
past – such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot – employed terror,
indoctrination, and isolation to monopolise power. ... The new autocracies
often simulate democracy, holding elections that the incumbents almost always
win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and
replacing comprehensive political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of
the West (Gandhi 2008, Levitsky and Way 2010). Their leaders often enjoy
genuine popularity – at least after eliminating any plausible rivals. State
propaganda aims not to ‘engineer human souls’ but to boost the dictator’s
ratings. Political opponents are harassed and defamed, charged with fabricated
crimes, and encouraged to emigrate, rather than being murdered en masse."

~~~
hackuser
I'm not sure their characterization of the past is accurate; all of those
tactics have long been practiced widely. Hitler was elected and had genuine
support. The Soviets and many others held periodic fake elections, as did many
other dictators, and even today there are people in Russia who love Stalin.
Saddam Hussein had the Sunnis and Baathists. Every dictator has sufficient
genuine support, or they would be overthrown; you can't imprison everyone.
Propaganda and harassing political opposition are very old tactics.

> replacing comprehensive political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of
> the West

Interestingly, isn't that the outlook of the Tea Partiers? The only
consistency I see is a rejection of the West: Science, liberty (for groups
other than Tea Partiers), tolerance, democratic government (if they are
outvoted, government is illegitimate and to be violently resisted),
environmentalism, organized labor, secularism, etc.

~~~
logfromblammo
Hitler was not elected.

Please stop propagating the myth. Hitler did have genuine support, but he lost
the 1932 presidential election. The Nazis never achieved a parliamentary
majority as a party until all the other parties were banned.

In 1932 Germany, the Chancellor was appointed by the President, who was
elected. Paul von Hindenberg won the election. He appointed Hitler to the
Chancellorship. Hitler achieved power via the Reichstag Fire Decree and the
Enabling Act, not ballots.

~~~
dragonwriter
The head of government in a parliamentary system (in the German system of the
time, the Chancellor) is usually appointed by the chief of state (in that
system, the President), but this is usually constrained by constitutional
restrictions governing who the chief of state can ask to form a government and
requiring the government to be supported by a majority of the parliament.

The Nazi party was the largest party in both 1932 parliamentary elections,
with no party securing a governing majority after the July election (leading
to rule by emergency decree by the President and a minority government), but
after the November election the Nazi party formed a coalition with various
others to form a government (now, those others thought that they'd be able to
blunt the Nazi party and their growing popularity more by including them in a
government and giving Hitler the chancellorship, but that's not an uncommon
reason for bringing trying to bring a party into a governing coalition.)

Hitler was elected in the same sense that Benjamin Netanyahu, or any other
head of government in a parliamentary system whose party only directly
controls a minority of seats, was, or is, elected.

> Hitler achieved power via the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act,
> not ballots.

Hitler achieved _greater_ power through those mechanisms, sure, but he was in
a position to do so only because of the Nazi parties strong showing in both of
the 1932 elections, and the inability of any opponents of the Nazis to form a
government without them.

~~~
logfromblammo
> Hitler was elected in the same sense that ... any other head of government
> in a parliamentary system whose party only directly controls a minority of
> seats, was, or is, elected.

Which is to say... _not elected_. Becoming the head of a coalition government
is more akin to a negotiation than an election.

In this case, the "negotiation" involved a lot of arm-twisting.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Becoming the head of a coalition government is more akin to a negotiation
> than an election.

Well, except for the whole election to the parliament that is necessary to
even be in the negotiation -- the same election that if you won enough seats
outright would make you the leader without the need for a coalition -- and
which sets the degree of power you have in the negotiation.

> In this case, the "negotiation" involved a lot of arm-twisting.

Arm twisting which was only possible because the Nazis were the largest party
in the July election, and then again in the November election, and because
there was _less_ common ground between the non-Nazi parties around which to
form a majority coalition than between the Nazis and the various conservative
parties (who, to be sure, still hated the Nazis, but hated them _less_ than
the they hated the other non-Nazi parties.)

------
JimboOmega
This article reminds me of a question I've thought about a lot recently:

When did elections become the norm? It seems like every despotic nation needs
at least some kind of elections. Even in totally authoritarian countries, like
say, Saddam's Iraq or North Korea, elections are held even if the leader
always wins in a landslide and it's clear to any outside observer that the
results are pre-determined.

200 years ago, there was no need for such things. Monarchy was considered a
perfectly legitimate form of government. Voting was considered dangerous, and
people often argued that democracy would be "mob rule" or "tyranny of the
masses". Systems like the electoral college (and representative democracy)
were created to put a check on such fears.

Even without Monarchy, "enlightened despotism" was advanced by many in the
19th century. Consider the words of (19th century general) Santa Anna: "[The
Mexican people] do not know what [liberty] is, unenlightened as they are, and
under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government
for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous
one."

But at some point along the way, it became clear that to have any legitimacy,
you have to have some kind of election. I wonder why? Or when?

~~~
dragonwriter
> 200 years ago, there was no need for such things. Monarchy was considered a
> perfectly legitimate form of government. Voting was considered dangerous,
> and people often argued that democracy would be "mob rule" or "tyranny of
> the masses".

By 1815, even many monarchies had elections of some form.

> Consider the words of (19th century general) Santa Anna: "[The Mexican
> people] do not know what [liberty] is, unenlightened as they are, and under
> the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for
> them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one."

Yeah, but Santa Anna said that to justify his actions at replacing an federal
representative system (which he himself had also been instrumental in
creating) with a centralized dictatorship, an act which provoked much of the
country to revolt with three breakaway republics declared, and a massive civil
war.

So, in context, its not really support for the idea that people even at that
time didn't see elections and democracy as important. Indeed, arguably, the
results of things like Santa Anna's efforts are _why_ later authoritarians
often prefer at least an illusion of democratic accountability.

~~~
JimboOmega
Perhaps the timeframe of 200 years may have been a bit short - given that the
French Revolution had just wrapped up, and despite the conservative victory,
the idea of absolute monarchy was on the decline. If you want to pick the
French Revolution as the point in time where the world (the Western world,
anyway) started to really think that at least some form of election was
necessary - I'd be willing to accept that. Though the monarchist victory in
that war proved it was still holding sway, and it's very debatable.

Yes, Santa Anna was no saint, and clearly the Mexican people didn't think so
much of abolishing the elections. The point of my using the quote, though, was
to illustrate that in an international context saying "Elections are a bad
idea for the people" was at least a vaguely reasonable thing to do at that
point in history.

You don't usually see dictators today saying "The people can't handle
elections; my enlightened rule is much better without the turbulence." Instead
they say "Everyone loves me! I won the election with 99% of the vote!"

So I wonder - when did that change? Is it because the view of the people
changed? I feel like it's more of an "international legitimacy" thing, like
governments are supposed to represent the people.

~~~
dragonwriter
> So I wonder - when did that change?

Over a long period of time. It was the case in much of the world by the time
200 years ago that you point to, but its progressed further since (and was
well established in some places long earlier.)

> Is it because the view of the people changed?

Yes. The single biggest factor in spreading this expectation was probably the
British Empire and its global reach.

------
noonespecial
_The challenge for an incompetent dictator is, then, to fool the public into
thinking he is competent. He chooses from among a repertoire of tools –
propaganda, repression of protests, co-optation of the elite, and censorship
of their messages. All such tools cost money, which must come from taxing the
citizens, depressing their living standards, and indirectly lowering their
estimate of the dictator’s competence. Hence the trade-off._

So these states edge towards using soft-power, influence, and PR balanced
against the cost of this which must be obtained through taxes to "fool" the
people into thinking the leadership is competent if it is in fact not (which
if successful will be indistinguishable to the common citizen from actually
_being_ competent)?

It seems that like the corrupt mafioso that edges towards legitimate business
as his income swells these political systems creep towards something an awful
lot like the western "democracies" we have now. As a citizen, how the hell
would you be able to tell the difference?

~~~
bmelton
The only real defense that comes to mind is to discourage _every_ governmental
attempt at obtaining power that might be, in any way, deemed coercive.

This of course flies against the interests of what most people assume
government to be for, and likely, makes it untenable, especially as the masses
trend towards government-as-a-solution more and more.

~~~
wffurr
I prefer government-as-a-solution to trust-the-capitalist-oligarchs-as-a-
solution. At least I get a vote with the government.

~~~
bmelton
And so do the million others who are happy to give up their privacy to the
government so that it can keep them safe from terrorism.

------
Mikeb85
If you want to see authoritarianism, you don't have far to look. Various
western agencies have already 'secured' the populations in most western
countries, and in some (USA), the 'ruling' class is very narrow, representing
a single set of interests.

In the USA's particular case, you have 2 parties which, despite the claimed
differences, wind up representing the exact same interests. Obama, far from
being a reversal of Bush's policies, continued and expanded all of them.

And no matter who comes into power, will likely expand on every repressive law
and strategy that's in effect right now.

~~~
happyscrappy
And how do you explain the legalization of marijuana. No politicians or
mustache twirlers want it to happen and yet it keeps occurring.

~~~
Mikeb85
I think they just realized that the legalization of it will keep people
distracted, whereas the continued prohibition of it would cause social unrest.

What we're 'allowed' to do is basically anything that keeps us too occupied to
overthrow the ruling class...

~~~
brandonmenc
Wouldn't "they" get more mileage from an outright endorsement of drug use? Get
the people on their side?

You're just rationalizing.

~~~
Mikeb85
You're ignoring the history of prohibition (of alcohol and drugs) and the 'war
on drugs'. Not to mention the 70's, the connection between recreational drugs
and 'hippies' (a subversive anti-war class). Not to mention the fact that up
to now the 'war on drugs' has also been used to restrict the rights of certain
social classes (it's been well documented how the laws are designed to
criminalize certain classes/ethnicities disproportionately).

------
Dirlewanger
None of this is "new". Pretty much everything described has occurred in most
past civilizations to varying degrees. The speed at which it happens and the
tools used are the only new things.

