> They are filling every power vacuum they create with direct executive power. Pure authoritarianism.
I just gave you a correct definition of authoritarianism, and that isn't it. It's also untrue -- this administration has rather aggressively moved to deregulate a number of areas that prior administrations had regulated. For example, not even a week ago, people here were complaining about the administration's move to deregulate PFAS:
Say what you will about the wisdom of the change, they aren't replacing that power vacuum with direct executive power. This administration is not canonically left, nor right, and it certainly isn't "authoritarian" by any traditional definition.
What does 'a correct' mean to you?
Wikipedia says:
> Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
As an outsider from Europe, it seems that is pretty much spot on to me. In Europe this probably applies to Hungary as well.
First of all, Wikipedia is useless for definitions of words that are in the middle of active political debate. You completely ignored the definition I gave you (which is from an impartial source [1]) in favor of one you prefer, from a wiki.
Setting that aside, you will see the that the citation for that definition [2] basically underscores the ambiguity of the term:
> Political scientists have outlined elaborated typologies of authoritarianism, from which it is not easy to draw a generally accepted definition; it seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.
I challenge you to defend the proposition that the current administration is attempting to "prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power", while simultaneously clearly acting to undermine many parts of said authority. There are actions by every administration that appear to be "authoritarian" when taken in isolation.
The parts about erosion of rule of law, etc. are clearly also applied to the current administration, but again, are mostly debatable -- these EOs are either within the power of the executive under current law, or they're overturned by the courts. I openly grant that our legislative branch has been on a 50+ year mission to abdicate responsibility to the executive, but that's neither exclusive to the current administration, nor is it "authoritarianism" to use the authorities granted to you under the law, and again, it's not unique for US administrations to overstep the law and be pulled back by the judicial.
I started with a question about what 'correct' means to you. So I was actually just questioning your rather absolute understanding of correctness. I just cited a random different source. I find it troublesome that criticism about a political situation which is troubling people, is often put on a semantic and personal level.
Correctness is difficult when you’re dealing with a word that has a vague constellation of meanings. I gave you a correct definition. I didn’t assert that it was the only possible correct definition, but it is correct, and I made an argument, using that definition, that the current administration does not fit. Picking another definition is not a counterargument, unless you can also convincingly argue that the definition I gave you is wrong.
Backing up, my point was that people use this word as an epithet, and have little understanding of any meaning at all, beyond “politician did something I don’t like”. The definition doesn’t fit, because people are just slinging insults.
The problem with picking an alternative definition from Wikipedia, in particular, is that it has absolutely been gamed to fit whatever the Current Thing happens to be. For that reason, you should favor a less chaotic source.
I just gave you a correct definition of authoritarianism, and that isn't it. It's also untrue -- this administration has rather aggressively moved to deregulate a number of areas that prior administrations had regulated. For example, not even a week ago, people here were complaining about the administration's move to deregulate PFAS:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45239803
Say what you will about the wisdom of the change, they aren't replacing that power vacuum with direct executive power. This administration is not canonically left, nor right, and it certainly isn't "authoritarian" by any traditional definition.