Dumb and Dumber From Down Under

A response to a Facebook post of mine leads to proof that a Ph.D. in Literary Studies is no measure of awareness or intelligence.

I need to bring a Facebook comment on my “Reasons Trump is not authoritarian” post of this morning to the forefront. A friend shared the post, and a friend of his posted a link to what must be one of the most historically clueless collection of words written by a Ph.D. in a very, very long time.

It was posted on a site called “The Conversation” which originates in Australia. I’ve not read it before, so I checked what its lean might be, and two out of three ratings called it “lean left” or “left”. Reading its current offerings on progressive politics, climate change, social justice and favorable analysis of left-wing movements, I’m going to say they are full-on leftist.

The author, Geoff M. Boucher, an Associate Professor in Literary Studies from Deakin University in Australia, says that to use the term “fascist” for Trump is inaccurate and just allows the “far right” (which seems to be anyone on the right these days) to claim that the left calls everything fascist (which they do) and that strips all meaning from the term (which it does).

Boucher writes:

"In my view, Trump is not a fascist. Rather, he is part of a ‘new authoritarianism’ that subverts democracy from within and solidifies power through administrative, rather than paramilitary, means."

My first thought is this must be the dumbest statement I have read this week – and for anyone to promote it as a reason to call Trump an “authoritarian” is to ignore American history. This article and anyone who thinks it is plowing new ground is hopelessly clueless.

I wondered if the author of this piece was less than 10 years old and maybe if he is, that is how he is not aware that administrative law has been used for over a century to capture and control every aspect of the lives of Americans – then I remembered he is 1) Australian and 2) a Ph.D. in Literary Studies, and then it began to make sense.

I think we are expected to understand the “new” part of “new authoritarianism” is because we are supposed to ignore anything that happened before 2016.

Boucher also lists three markers for Trump’s authoritarianism:

1. Undermining electoral integrity – questioning weird stuff about elections is bad.

2. Weakening the legislative and judicial branches – criticizing congressional stupidity and spending decisions is bad, also criticizing judicial decisions and judges is also bad. Using EOs is really, really, bad.

3. Attacking his enemies – investigating and prosecuting people from the other party is bad, which makes me wonder where Boucher was from 2016 through 2024.

Using Boucher’s premise, if “authoritarianism” is to be defined as use of the administrative state - the expansion of federal agencies, their budgets, staffing, and regulatory authority - to control the populace of a nation, then it would seem germane to know under which American presidents the administrative state grew the most.

So, I asked my research assistant (let’s call him Grok), to outline the top five presidencies associated with the most substantial growth of the administrative state, focusing on agency creation, regulatory authority, and bureaucratic expansion. Here’s what he found, ranked in order:

1. Woodrow Wilson

2. FDR

3. Lyndon Johnson

4. Richard Nixon

5. Barack Obama

Shocker, four out of the five were Democrat administrations. Nixon’s place on the list was ensured by his creation of the EPA and OSHA – both which became powerful agencies with lasting impacts on industry and public health and expanded into areas neither was ever anticipated to regulate.

The administrative state grew most significantly under Franklin D. Roosevelt due to the New Deal’s unprecedented creation of agencies and expansion of federal authority. Woodrow Wilson laid the intellectual and early institutional groundwork, Lyndon B. Johnson did more in a single term than many did in two as he deepened the state’s reach through the Great Society policies and programs. Richard Nixon and Barack Obama contributed substantially, particularly through environmental and financial regulations, respectively.

It is hard to come up with exact rankings because they depend on whether one prioritizes agency creation, regulatory output, or staffing, but one thing is for sure - FDR’s transformative impact is unmatched in scale and scope of all three categories.

The amazing thing about this article is that it completely ignores that Trump is attacking the very administrative state the author claims his authoritarianism is built upon. The GOP has talked for decades about shrinking government but so far, only Trump has acted on that promise, working to cut agency spending and eliminating agencies that create regulations that no lawmaker or citizen has ever voted on.

You really should read this article.