Autocrat vs Institutionalist

[Ken]

I disagree.

A big part of Trump's appeal to his base is his autocratic tendences. That he will round up millions of immigrants and detain/deport them. That he will crack down on protests on college campuses and crime in the cities. And that he will advantage evangelical Christians and business conservatives, who are both minorities in this country and who hold minority opinions.

I don’t think that’s his appeal, although I am aware that is what anti-Trump people think. That doesn’t mean it’s actually true.

As far as rounding up millions of immigrants and detaining and deporting them, that would seem to be Institutionalist to me, not Authoritarian. Simply enforcing the Institutions already set up and the immigrant laws already in force. I don’t think it’s “authoritarian” to enforce laws and give institutions like Dept of HS a mandate to maintain law and order.

Trump's premier issue is immigration. And this is an authoritarian approach, not an institutionalist approach. An institutionalist approach would have been the bipartisan immigration bill that he torpedoed this past year which would have increased the existing capacities to quickly review asylum claims and deport those who don't qualify. Trump through his allies in Congress torpedoed the institutionalist approach: https://nypost.com/2024/05/05/us-news/i ... om-the-us/

Donald Trump has vowed to deliver the “largest mass deportation effort” in American history if he gets back into office next year, targeting millions of illegal migrants across the country.

The 45th president has frequently spoken about his deportation agenda, and recently indicated in a TIME Magazine interview that he would leverage local law enforcement, the National Guard and the military to carry out his plan — similar to the dragnet-style sweeps of “Operation Wetback” under former President Dwight Eisenhower that shipped more than 1 million migrants out in 1954.

The Trump 2024 campaign has not gotten into the details of what resources would be needed to find, detain and deport the “nearly 20 million” illegal migrants they say are currently in the US.

[Josh]

Last I checked, Trump hasn’t been in power for 4 years and isn’t in charge of much of anything, other than some golf courses.

The institutions to control immigration have existed for a while. The point is, those institutions have been basically disabled, because an authoritarian approach has appeared instead - find ways to flout the established law and regulations, which is we now have tens of millions of illegal aliens in this country. (Don’t bother bringing up fake asylum claims again; it’s not a useful discussion.)

[Ken]

Last I checked, Trump hasn’t been in power for 4 years and isn’t in charge of much of anything, other than some golf courses.

The institutions to control immigration have existed for a while. The point is, those institutions have been basically disabled, because an authoritarian approach has appeared instead - find ways to flout the established law and regulations, which is we now have tens of millions of illegal aliens in this country. (Don’t bother bringing up fake asylum claims again; it’s not a useful discussion.)

This isn't about post-presidency Trump. This is about what he SAYS he wants to do if re-elected for a new term.

The immigration institutions in this country haven't been disabled. They have been underfunded by both parties for decades which has resulted in a system in which egregious delays amount to a loophole. The obvious institutional solution is to properly fund and staff up the immigration infrastructure in this country which is what a consensus of both Democrats and Republicans tried to do. Until Trump convinced his MAGA sycophants in the House to block those efforts for partisan reasons.

In any event his authoritarian posturing is probably mostly hot air. Do you actually know anyone in the National Guard? I do. They did not sign up to be immigration officers. They signed up to be a reserve military force in case of emergencies and to be called up by their governors in times of local emergency (hurricanes, floods, etc.). They are not trained or paid to be full time immigration officers. They have actual lives and other careers. If they are actually going to take on the job of ICE then they should get paid double or triple what they get as guardsmen since that is the work they are doing.

In any event, how is this even going to work? Is he going to send platoons of National Guard on endless workplace raids across the country? Every corporate farm, every meat packing plant, every big construction site, every food processing plant, etc. etc.? That will win him over to his business constituency. When all the peaches in Georgia, oranges in Florida, and produce in California rots in the field due to lack of labor, then what? Are we going to have National Guard immigration roadblocks popping up on every freeway across the country for ID checks? Creating monstrous lines of traffic and congestion? That's going to win him over with suburban commuters. How does one actually round up 20 million illegal immigrants?

And then what? You have to deport them via the same immigration courts that do asylum hearings. You can't simply put people on the next plane. You have to hold a deportation proceeding in front of an immigration judge who will determine if the person in question is actually subject to removal. And not just someone vaguely Hispanic looking who didn't have documents available when he got caught in an immigration dragnet. That isn't going to go any faster than the current asylum hearings. And since we don't have holding cells for 20 million people in this country what next? They will be released back to resume their lives until their deportation hearing comes up in 2 years.

And that's not even addressing the issue that the guard is actually under the control of the various governors. So Texas and Florida will probably cooperate. California, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, Illinois, etc. will not. Is he going to try to federalize the guard for partisan political reasons? Or just call out regular active duty troops?

Sometimes the authoritarian approach is actually the stupid approach. Even if it wins votes.

[HondurasKeiser]

I'd like the discussion not to rehash the merits (or demerits) of either candidate, or the value of liberalism vs conservatism, but to focus on Autocracy vs Institutionalism, whether these classifications adequately describe the candidates, whether the terms are helpful or unhelpful in understanding the present situation, and what governance approach might be best in the current context.

[Jazman]

Well, Ken, one of the autocrat's appeals is essentially telling people they don't have to think through the kinds of questions you're raising. They have an end in mind (ie no more illegal immigrants in our land anywhere/anytime) but either don't want to think through the means - or - have a bit of a guilty conscience stirring about the real (horrific) means they might be thinking of to get the job done, so they keep that quiet and keep trumpeting the end...in the hopes of getting there somehow, someday. A large segment of the american church has embraced this end-justifying-the-means approach and so the current authoritarian/autocratic appeal is especially effective with many claiming christians.

[Josh]

This discussion is degrading into “the candidate and policies I don’t like are an evil autocrat”. Not a very useful discussion.

[Ken]

This discussion is degrading into “the candidate and policies I don’t like are an evil autocrat”. Not a very useful discussion.

I think it is quite useful to take a current major area of policy and ask: "What is the institutionalist approach to this issue? and what is the autocratic approach to this issue?"

The words and concepts don't have much meaning if you can't otherwise define what they mean in practice. We don't live Imperial Rome when those terms meant something different in practice.

[Jazman]

Some here believe this retired pastor is too partisan... but I'm going to keep linking him because he addresses, through the lens of Jesus and the Bible, the issues that keep coming up on this forum. This recent video very much relates to this question of autocrat vs institutionalist... Here he's contrasting the ways of the autocrat with something better (even better than mere institutionalism!) I really like what he says about cynicism... and how that is a core to the methods of the autocrat/strongman and how the way of Jesus is different and how claiming christians should be different too. (As someone who tends towards cynicism, this was convicting)
I too may wish that this pastor could use a different figure to illustrate autocracy, an autocrat, etc, but unfortunately, the most relevant living example in our Politics / country now, can be studied in real time... If that bothers you, may I suggest you encourage your voting friends and neighbors to pick a different, better moral character, less burn-it-all-down revolutionary autocratic Republican candidate (there are numerous ones btw... institutionalists who don't lie endlessly like all autocrats do, who except election results, who don't abuse women or the weak).

[Josh]

Some here believe this retired pastor is too partisan... but I'm going to keep linking him because he addresses, through the lens of Jesus and the Bible, the issues that keep coming up on this forum. This recent video very much relates to this question of autocrat vs institutionalist... Here he's contrasting the ways of the autocrat with something better (even better than mere institutionalism!) I really like what he says about cynicism... and how that is a core to the methods of the autocrat/strongman and how the way of Jesus is different and how claiming christians should be different too. (As someone who tends towards cynicism, this was convicting)
I too may wish that this pastor could use a different figure to illustrate autocracy, an autocrat, etc, but unfortunately, the most relevant living example in our Politics / country now, can be studied in real time... If that bothers you, may I suggest you encourage your voting friends and neighbors to pick a different, better moral character, less burn-it-all-down revolutionary autocratic Republican candidate (there are numerous ones btw... institutionalists who don't lie endlessly like all autocrats do, who except election results, who don't abuse women or the weak).

... there are no other examples of autocrats?

I also do not see any reason, as Christians, we should throw our weight behind inherently corrupt institutions that do not advance Jesus' kingdom. That's why I find the original premise of this thread questionable; it betrays a certain kind of American exceptionalism, as if American institutions are some kind of paragons of morality, truth, and ethics.

[Dan Z]

Some here believe this retired pastor is too partisan... but I'm going to keep linking him because he addresses, through the lens of Jesus and the Bible, the issues that keep coming up on this forum. This recent video very much relates to this question of autocrat vs institutionalist... Here he's contrasting the ways of the autocrat with something better (even better than mere institutionalism!) I really like what he says about cynicism... and how that is a core to the methods of the autocrat/strongman and how the way of Jesus is different and how claiming christians should be different too. (As someone who tends towards cynicism, this was convicting)
I too may wish that this pastor could use a different figure to illustrate autocracy, an autocrat, etc, but unfortunately, the most relevant living example in our Politics / country now, can be studied in real time... If that bothers you, may I suggest you encourage your voting friends and neighbors to pick a different, better moral character, less burn-it-all-down revolutionary autocratic Republican candidate (there are numerous ones btw... institutionalists who don't lie endlessly like all autocrats do, who except election results, who don't abuse women or the weak).

... there are no other examples of autocrats?

I also do not see any reason, as Christians, we should throw our weight behind inherently corrupt institutions that do not advance Jesus' kingdom. That's why I find the original premise of this thread questionable; it betrays a certain kind of American exceptionalism, as if American institutions are some kind of paragons of morality, truth, and ethics.

I can go part-way with you here Josh.

I think the pastor Jazman linked is answering Christian Nationalists and evangelical leaders who have been endorsing Donald Trump's candidacy without really considering how contrary his character or methods are to Kingdom ethics - and how that un-holy alliance discredits their witess. The problem with this, as you have pointed out, is that regardless of whether or not Trump wins the election, the US Government (or any other for that matter) is still a secular state that, at its core, is aligned with its own self-interests - not the Kingdom of God. In the end, even the most virtuous government will come to naught as Jesus puts all powers and principalities under his feet. So... if pointing out the depravity of Donald Trump simply convinces people to support Biden instead, then in a spiritual sense what really has been gained? However, if the pastor's message brings conservative Christians to their senses regarding the false hope and misplaced allegiance they have placed in strongmen and government coercion, drawing their loyalty back to Jesus where it belongs, then more power to him. If this discussion is a theological one, then conscientious abstention is the answer.

That being said, in another sense, I do think discussions and observations about organizational ethics and institutional health can be helpful, even among Christians - and that is why this topic is in the "Politics" section of MN (as opposed to the "Theology" section for example). Within all organizations and governments, there are helpful and unhelpful leadership styles - good/altruistic leaders and exploitive/unethical leaders - relatively just systems, and relatively unjust systems - organizations that help people, and those that do harm. As long as we exist on earth, we live in a multi-layered social context and, provided we guard our allegiances, I think we are free to think about and even learn from how the world around us operates. Our faith may limit our level of participation in a government or some organization, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're not allowed to think about what is going around us.