I haven't come across an imperialist who did not end up becoming authoritarian or wasn't already an authoritarian. History is witness to what colonialism/imperialism can do to subjects it ends up gaining control over.
The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period.
By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
> The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period.
True. But doesn't stop imperialists from being autocratic in the areas they colonize because no rule of law exists once a regime is toppled and a vacuum created in those regions. It is literally free for all. For a period of time, that occupied area belongs to the imperialist power (unless the power is magnanimous enough to let go of the occupied area and allow the people to determine their fate). But during that period, would the laws of the imperialist power extend to occupied territories? I don't think so. I haven't heard of any such instance in history.
> By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
True as well. But it comes down to not having WMD and threatening the World (case in point: North Korea or even China). So these are autocrats but with their sphere of influence only restricted to their own territory because of lack of military capabilities. Do you seriously think that Lukashenko won't flex his muscle over other neighbouring European countries if he had military capabilities the likes of which US has?
Right, but the question wasn't whether imperialism implies authoritarianism but whether authoritarianism implies imperialism.
Most/all imperialists are authoritarian but many authoritarians aren't imperialists. It's true that Trump doesn't appear to be as imperialistic or hawkish as many previous presidents, but that doesn't imply one way or another anything about potential authoritarianism.
You made an argument that accusations of Trump being an authoritarian are unfounded, but as evidence you cited examples of him not being an imperialist, rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian. Your examples don't preclude the possibility of him potentially being a non-imperialistic authoritarian.
> rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian
Well can you give me a way to find examples of him "not being" an authoritarian? That very question shows how weak your argument is. That you have to clutch at straws to prove he is an autocrat.
Now let me ask you this: Is Putin an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Xi an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Kim Jong-un an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. From targeted assassinations of opposition leaders to detention/containment/concentration/re-education camps you have every single reason to label them autocratic. Can you give examples of Trump being an autocrat? The literal definition of "autocrat" is "someone who has absolute power". Trump doesn't have absolute power. So how does it make him an autocrat?
There are literally many autocrats in this World you can compare against. Trump is definitely a loud mouth. No doubt about it. And he is crass in the way he speaks. He doesn't have a likeable personality. He is a narcissist.
His entire tenure was literally crying about how media treats him, how many in his own party don't support him (RINOs) and how investigations against him vis-a-vis Russian collusion was based on a hoax. Can you name one autocrat who cried about how powerless he is? Have you seen Putin talk this way? Xi talk this way? What about Hitler? Name one autocrat who comes to your mind who has exhibited this behaviour. You can't. This in no way sounds like an autocrat. An autocrat is never this weak and defeatist.
The first thing an autocrat would do is muscle the media. Media thrived under the Trump regime. Constantly berating and attacking him. If this had happened in China or Russia that media house would be non-existent the very next second with all journalists mysteriously missing. If Jack Ma isn't safe you think journalists would be? No ways. This is autocracy for you.
Heck, Trump ran his entire 2016 campaign on the slogan of "Lock her up". Did he do it? On the contrary, the entire scandal was hushed up and the investigative agencies instead focused on Trump's supposed collusion with Russia and Ukraine. I can bet my right limb no investigative agency will investigate Biden on his ties with Ukraine. Why? Because things are back to how it always was. Trump was just an aberration. History will be kinder to him because right now emotions are high and no one wants to see things without filters.
