
The mouse smiled brightly
It outfoxed the cat!
Then down came the claw,
And that, Love, was that
-Lyrics to a lullaby recited by the devil Raphael
Commenting on a recent post by Scott Sumner, Mactoul argued “Authoritarianism is useful when you are trying to downsize the federal bureaucracy.” This sort of love affair with arbitrary power is common when the authoritarian does what you want. It’s why authoritarianism is so seductive, even to those who abhor power. Many days and nights I have spent dreaming of the utopia that would exist if only I, and I alone, wielded absolute power. Even Adam Smith discusses how certain evils, like slavery, are more likely to be abolished or mitigated under an arbitrary government as opposed to a more limited government (WN, pages 586-588 of the Liberty Fund Edition. Common citation: Book IV, Chapter 7, Part b, paragraphs 54-55).
But lest we be seduced by this ability for authoritarianism to do good, we must remember that it is arbitrary. What can be undone by an authoritarian government can once again be done. For the past four years, the Biden Administration expanded its arbitrary power via executive order. The Trump Administration is using that same power for its own end goals.
Those who promote arbitrary power tend to imagine they are the only ones who will wield it. But authoritarians are human, too. They will die. Either they die peacefully in their bed like Stalin, at the end of a figurative rope like Robespierre or Ceaușescu, or by their own hand like Hitler. Then the arbitrary powers pass along to someone else; someone who may very well undo everything they worked toward.
History is littered with examples of authoritarians using arbitrary power for some seemingly noble goal only for it to backfire. A notable example is Weimar Germany. Weimar Germany, while more liberal than its predecessor, was still quite illiberal. Indeed, the government often brutally suppressed dissent, most notably the Nazis. Many German officials of the 20s and 30s saw the Nazis as a unique threat and employed the full legal (and many illegal) powers of the Weimar government to suppress the movement. When the Nazis eventually triumphed, they simply took control of an already-authoritarian state. The Enabling Act of 1933 was not the beginning of authoritarianism in Germany. Rather, it was the final nail in the coffin of freedom.
Authoritarianism is, ultimately, a deal with the devil; it is a Faustian bargain. Even if the terms of the bargain are made to advance goodness, the Devil always wins. I do not celebrate authoritarian power when it is accomplishing what I want for that simple reason. If the law is laid low, if power becomes arbitrary rather than constrained, then what is to protect me when the reins of power fall to the Devil? Am I truly to rely on his mercy?
All those who argue authoritarian powers can be useful ought to think very long and hard about the lyric above: are they the cat…or the mouse?
READER COMMENTS
TMC
Mar 7 2025 at 10:58am
It is ironic that executive orders need to be removed by other executive order, but we need to consider the net effect of the order. Is power added to or removed from the federal government by an action? It takes an order or law to kill the Dept of Education, but surely it is not authoritarian to remove power from oneself. Also, lumping in legitimate functions of the government as authoritarian does not see to be useful. The definition should be confined to whether the Feds have more or less power by the action.
Jon Murphy
Mar 7 2025 at 12:52pm
I’m not sure where the quote your using is coming from. But let me respond to it anyway as it is incorrect. The Trump Administration is not using executive orders to reduce power. They have done exactly none of that; they’re using the increased power of the EO to accomplish their own goals. In fact, things like using EOs to end departments is an expansion of power; only Congress has that legal authority.
TMC
Mar 7 2025 at 1:36pm
That was a corrected version of your quote, but I didn’t put in quotes as it was modified. The blocking does it make it look like that more than I intended it to.
As for your second point, the presidency has been doing that for centuries, and Congress has agreed with the practice for decades. It should not be that way, but it is not an expansion of power. I’ll reiterate that it’s the net effect that needs to be looked at. His actions are reducing the influence of the federal government on net.
Jon Murphy
Mar 7 2025 at 5:00pm
So, the formatting you used is called “blockquote.” It’s used just like quote marks. So, by putting my comment there and adding on a “correction”, you make it look like I said it, and consequently inversed my whole meaning. In the future, you may not want to use the blockquote for anyother than an actual quote.
Neither statement is true.
Yes, it is.
And I’ll reiterate that claim is incorrect. The whole point of my post is that claim is incorrect.
TMC
Mar 8 2025 at 11:52am
Executive orders go back to George Washington. Teddy Roosevelt had over 1000.
Some famous ones:
The Emancipation Proclamation
Roosevelt’s WPA
Roosevelt’s Japanese-American Concentration Camps
The Creation of FEMA
Nixon’s creation of the EPA
Authoritarianism’s definition: the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
The second part is key here. When it increase personal freedom, it is not Authoritarianism. Thus my comment that the net effect is what is important. While I agree arbitrary power is bad as it could lead to authoritarianism, it itself is not Authoritarianism.
“Mactoul argued “Authoritarianism is useful when you are trying to downsize the federal bureaucracy.”
Mactoul, and your critique of the quote, are wrong in that the fact that the power is being used by the federal government to downsize its own power is, by definition, not authoritarianism.
Jon Murphy
Mar 8 2025 at 12:40pm
Again, the point of my post is such arbitary power will result in a reduction in personal freedoms.
Craig
Mar 7 2025 at 12:53pm
“Authoritarianism is useful when you are trying to downsize the federal bureaucracy.””
I would suggest Mactoul’s qualification ‘when you are trying to downsize the federal bureacracy’ is an important qualification. Right now, today, the ‘Deep State’ which is really just a bunch of lazy DC suburb aristocrats with six figure salaries, Cadillac health plans and gold plates pensions, living comofortable lives in the top 20 income counties in the nation. Look it up, its rather shocking and this parasitization needs to stop. Now there are court cases and there are statutes like civil service and unions, etc. But right now DT is the ‘boss’ of the executive branch and there exists some concept that the boss of the executive branch should be able to unilaterally fire people. You know, like the rest of the taxpaying public is subjected to on a daily basis. Now, historically there was a reason they limited this authority and that was the spoils system where the winner inserts his cronies. There’s something to be said for that, but right now there is an entrenched bureacracy and they’re the problem with this country. They need to go, this system needs an enema. If we’re lucky DT will move the imperial capital to Ravenna (modern day Mar-A-Lago, I suppose). He promised to ‘Drain the Swamp’ and I’ll take that Faustian bargain because DT gonna die soon and those people have been parasitizing me for decades now.
Jon Murphy
Mar 7 2025 at 1:14pm
Yes. I am addressing that qualification and discussing why it is not legitimate.
steve
Mar 7 2025 at 1:28pm
If you are interested in actual data, Pew has a nice fairly short piece on government workers. For the sake of brevity, I think you are mostly wrong about the bureaucracy. The real issue is Congress and POTUS, mostly Congress. The people working for the government are just carrying out the laws passed by Congress, usually influenced by POTUS. If we are honest I think most of us would agree that a good number of the laws are poorly written so it’s up to the bureaucrats and the courts to figure out how to carry them out. So mostly we need to fix Congress but they have deferred their power to POTUS.
I also believe that an underlying cause of the dysfunction is the change in party dynamics. There has always been a push for more govt activity and always a push for lower taxes. This tension gave us a party that pushed for higher taxes and more govt and another party that pushed for lower taxes and less govt. Voters sort of functioned as a market to decide which party they wanted to buy. However, starting with Reagan the GOP became the party that cut taxes but left alone the size of govt. That was great electoral politics since to voter it felt like they were getting govt services for free, but it just ran up debt.
Steve
steve
Mar 7 2025 at 1:29pm
Oops. Link.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/
Craig
Mar 7 2025 at 1:50pm
“The people working for the government are just carrying out the laws passed by Congress”
Google up quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial. They draft up administrative code and then have administrative courts which the legislative branch defers to because you’re right they’re a problem too, but even the judicial branch will say things like, “First you must ‘exhaust your administrative remedies'” all while they have incestuous relationships with the para-government sector.
steve
Mar 7 2025 at 2:48pm
The judicial branch openly jokes about the laws passed by Congress. They note that Congress passes poorly written laws, then they have to decide what they mean. So right now you have a combo of govt agencies and courts deciding what their poorly written laws mean. As you reduce the number of govt workers that burden will lie more with the courts, which AFAICT is an explicit libertarian goal. I dont need to rehash the argument but in the opinion of many the courts are just another group of politicians.
Regardless of whether or not you think courts are a better option they are a slower, more costly option and certainly if the courts are deciding on anything that requires any kind of technical or scientific knowledge its a crapshoot as judges dont understand the issues. Think about it. We get special tax courts because taxes are so complicated but your judge who took the minimal amount of science courses to get by and just barely passed those will be ruling on whose experts know more about science based issues.
Steve
Monte
Mar 7 2025 at 12:59pm
Thou hast well said, although the contrast interesting. While Trump seems to conjure up images of Stalin, Hitler, and the devil, his predecessor is more often and accurately portrayed as a harmless puppet (see Jeff Dunham’s Joe “Walter” Biden).
I liken Trump to Mancur Olsen’s idea of a benevolent dictator:
“[N]ot like the wolf that preys on the elk, but more like the rancher who makes sure his cattle are protected and are given water”, arguing that they have an incentive to provide public goods at the same time they extract the largest possible surplus for themselves.
When a building is on fire, should a leader survey everyone to see what the consensus is about a response? It’s an honest question, not an endorsement of authoritarianism.
Jon Murphy
Mar 7 2025 at 1:16pm
That’s rather generous. I’m not sure Donald J Trump cares about anyone other than Donald J Trump. If he did, he wouldn’t be enacting policies that cause harm.
David Henderson
Mar 7 2025 at 1:36pm
I think he cares about people other than himself, his family for example. But he clearly doesn’t care about American consumers.
Monte
Mar 7 2025 at 2:13pm
I’m hard-pressed to think of most presidents who haven’t, and a majority of Americans apparently don’t share your opinion. Regardless, the pain is not quite as excruciating as it was the last 4 years.
Jon Murphy
Mar 7 2025 at 2:33pm
The funny thing about facts is they hold even if they are unpopular. Even then, given how unpopular Trump and his policies are, I don’t think a majority, or even a plurality, disagree with me that the problem is doing net harm.
Regardless, Trump has explicitly stated on multiple occasions that his policies are targeting certain groups. Many of his supporters trump (pun intended) the fact that he goes after various groups. So, there’s no reason to think he’s a benevolent dictator.
All that aside, my point is precisely that, even if he were benevolent, a dictator is still a dictator and that is a deal with the devil. When you make a deal with the devil, do not be surprised when the devil comes to collect.
Monte
Mar 7 2025 at 3:34pm
I dread to think what the alternatives might have been. But if you want to cast blame, remember that the vote belongs to the people. If it happens they’ve turned theirs butts to the fire, they’ll just have to sit on their blisters. Nevertheless, that’s a decision best left in their hands.
Jon Murphy
Mar 7 2025 at 5:01pm
My prefered alternative would be to follow the law.
Agreed. Thus the warning of my post.
Jose Pablo
Mar 10 2025 at 1:26pm
a majority of Americans apparently don’t share your opinion.
This claim is factually incorrect.
Even if one equates “voting for Trump” with “agreeing with all of Trump’s policies,” (a very benevolent interpretation to say the least) only 77.3 million Americans voted for him in the 2024 election. That’s out of 156.3 million total voters, 244 million eligible voters, or a population of 340 million.
From a factual standpoint, a more accurate statement would be:
49.4% of those who voted in the last election cast their ballots for Trump, which accounts for approximately 31.7% of all eligible voters (and around 23% of the people living in the US).
This hardly constitutes a “majority” by any reasonable definition of the term.
Furthermore, the notion that liberal democracies are about imposing majoritarian rule is a fundamental misconception. They are designed primarily to limit what a majority can impose on individuals, ensuring the protection of individual rights and freedoms
Jon Murphy
Mar 8 2025 at 8:49am
An emergency is one thing. But this is not an emergency. There’s no reason to think the normal processes cannot be followed.
Mactoul
Mar 7 2025 at 11:23pm
So authoritarianism resolves to illegality of acts
Which is a definite thing as opposed to the term authoritarian which is suggestive only. Then why not use the more definite term?
Federal judges are neither the sole nore final arbitrator of legality, not to mention their authoritarianism in which they are past masters.
Many of them are part and parcel of the administrative bureaucracy itself. And thus part of problem itself.
And when the Supremes themselves agree only 5-4 regarding legality or constitutionality of some act, then what may ordinary citizens infer?
There are far too many instances of judicial overreach and lawfare such that judiciary cannot be given uncritical deference. In many cases executive is actually more correct than judiciary.
Jon Murphy
Mar 8 2025 at 6:20am
An authoritarian act may be legal or illegal. As I discussed in the post, the censorship regime of the Wiemar Republic was, in their system, legal. But it was still authoritarian. Indeed, even in your argument for authoritarianism that inspired this post, you refer to legal actions. I prefer the common definition of authoritarianism:
The rest of your comment is quite interesting, but not really relevant to my point here, so I’m going to delay a direct response. But it is related to another post I’m writing relating to Steve’s comment he often makes of judges as “politicians in robes.” So, stay tuned.
Mactoul
Mar 8 2025 at 9:14pm
I thank you for the definition. Now we can proceed.
But I am unclear precisely how Trump has been detrimental to personal liberty. Even on tariffs, there is no country and no politician, however liberal, who rejects tariffs ob principle. Indeed, I just read NYT saying that we must not fall to anti-tariff absolutism.
Other acts, like stopping public money to favored NGOs, however painful to the NGO concerned, are net positive and so are firing of civil servants on a small-scale.
Jon Murphy
Mar 8 2025 at 9:40pm
Tariffs are just one way he’s violating personal freedom. Anti immigration is another. Breaking contracts is a third. Threatening our neighbors and other countries with annexation. Usurping power from Congress. Usurping power from judges. Just to name a few.
Again, even if you agree with the goals and truly believe he is a benevolent dictator, eventually Trump will no longer be in power. Then those same powers will fall to others who will turn them against you.
Where will you hide, the laws all laid low? Do you truly intend to rely on the mercy of the Devil?
Yes, I would deny Trump arbitrary and authoritarian power for my own Safety’s sake!
Mactoul
Mar 9 2025 at 6:07am
Even NYT doesn’t accuse Trump of usurping legitimate authority of the Congress and the judiciary. They merely keep on fearing e may not heed a judicial ruling and cause a constitutional crisis. We will see when it happens.
As for deportations, this is implementing the laws as they stand. You perhaps deplore the enthusiasm he shows in doing his constitutional obligation?
Jon Murphy
Mar 9 2025 at 6:58am
So? What do I care what the NYT thinks?
Mactoul
Mar 8 2025 at 12:41am
The term arbitrary is doing a lot of work in your argument but what precisely you mean by it isn’t quite clear
TThe executive must act by very definition and the acts that displease one could be easily labeled arbitrary.
American Constitution lays down executive power in the person of the president but over the years so-called independent agencies have been created. Now the serious debate is over how much independence these agencies ought to have and how much they should be under presidential authority — this is the question of unitary authority of presidency.
PS: the so -called Weimar suppression of Nazis is absurd.
Jon Murphy
Mar 8 2025 at 12:45pm
I meant it as you were using the term: power that is arbitrary, not codified. Unchecked. Unlimited. I recommend checking out the Adam Smith citation I give in the post.
Unfortunately, it is not. In fact, the idea that the Weimar Republic did not conduct widespread censorship has a name: the Weimar Fallacy.
Mactoul
Mar 9 2025 at 6:14am
Are all the lawyers dead? And all the Democrats s well?
How can there be unchecked unrestrained power in America?
Plenty of judges are giving instructions to the Federal government to keep cash flowing onto favored NGOs to promote social engineering throughout the world
Jon Murphy
Mar 9 2025 at 6:59am
Right but you were saying that’s a bad thing. Again my point is arbitrary power is a deal with the devil.
Warren Platts
Mar 9 2025 at 12:38am
OK, fair enough, but to say that definition applies to Trump is very unfair. And to liken him to “The Devil” is, frankly, beyond the pale; he’s already been shot at twice. Dictators are people like General Secretary Xi, or, dare I say, Honest Abe Lincoln. President Trump is merely doing what the people who voted for him want him to do. I get it: you got sour grapes because your preferred candidate, Mrs. Kamala Harris, got trounced in the election. Then bring her back for a redo in 2028 and see if the American electorate will change its collective mind. Or perhaps more likely, you are one of those persons that take pride in never voting. In that case, you have no cause for complaint anyways.
Jon Murphy
Mar 9 2025 at 7:09am
Warren-
Please reread my post more carefully. I am reacting to a very specific comment made by Mactoul and his desire for authoritarianism to accomplish desired goals.
Further, in no way did I accuse Trump of being the Devil. “A deal with the Devil” (or a Faustian bargain) is a common figure of speech meaning that dramatic or ironic consequences of an action lead to results the individual finds counter to their goal or unpalatable.
Mactoul
Mar 9 2025 at 8:54am
I express no such desire since authoritarian is merely a term of suggestive abuse. However I have pointed out that such things that need to be done are typically not accomplished by overly fastidious personalities.
Jon Murphy
Mar 9 2025 at 9:04am
I literally quoted you, dude.
Mactoul
Mar 9 2025 at 8:43am
Jon Murphy,
I cite NYT merely because you gave no instance where Trump has usurped judiciary or Congress.
NYT is devoting a great deal of space to Trump from an antagonistic angle but they don’t mention any usurpation.
And as for dictatorship, are there any political prisoners? Any opposition figure arrested?
Jon Murphy
Mar 9 2025 at 9:08am
Again, so what? What do I care what the NYT thinks?
While those aren’t the only indicators of arbitrary power, the current head of the FBI has threatened to use his power, acting on behalf of the President, to target political opponents and go after disfavored speech. Trump has also expressed similar desires. He’s engaging in the very same political prosecutions as his predecessor (one such case, see the current affair with the mayor of New York City).
Mactoul
Mar 11 2025 at 10:48am
Because NYT is a newspaper and it has not reported any usurpation of judicial authority contrary to your assertions.
Jon Murphy
Mar 11 2025 at 11:06am
Again, why should I care?
Mactoul
Mar 12 2025 at 12:35am
You don’t worry about contradictions to your assertions?
Jon Murphy
Mar 12 2025 at 8:14am
I do. But there’s no contradiction. Disagreement, possibly. But no contradiction.
You assert the NYT disagrees with me. So what? Again, why should I care about a newspaper that’s 2,000 miles away from me?
Warren Platts
Mar 9 2025 at 3:14pm
There was Peter Navarro, Trump’s economic advisor who wrote at least two books on tariffs.
Jon Murphy
Mar 9 2025 at 4:01pm
I think Mactoul was asking if Trump was taking any political prisoners/political prosecutions.
Jose Pablo
Mar 10 2025 at 12:47pm
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/dhs-detains-columbia-student-who-helped-lead-pro-palestinian-protests-fbbd8196?page=1
Monte
Mar 10 2025 at 1:06pm
Wonderful news! Maybe if we’re lucky, they’ll confiscate his green card and send him back to Syria.
Jose Pablo
Mar 10 2025 at 1:35pm
His green card has in fact already been revoked.
I don’t know Monte.
Jailing students, managing the press access to the president,
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/white-house-takes-control-of-press-pool-that-shares-access-to-president-trump-a5bb366f?page=1
aggressively displaying bad manners when criticizing other people’s views
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1892569791140946073
What is next, burning books?
We’ve seen this before. It never ends well, even when the books being burned (or the people being deported) are ones you deeply disagree with.
Monte
Mar 10 2025 at 3:06pm
It’s quite a leap to go from deporting a foreign-born terrorist sympathizer who calls for the end of Western civilization to burning books. Khalil doesn’t see his acceptance into this country and Columbia as a privilege, but rather as an opportunity to foment hate and violent protests against America and Israel. Why shouldn’t we welcome more like him into our universities with open arms?
Jose Pablo
Mar 10 2025 at 3:21pm
Of course, Monte, Khalil deserve it. And yet, other Americans seem to see the case in a different light:
The New York Civil Liberties Union condemned Khalil’s arrest as an affront to his right to free speech. “The Trump administration’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil — a green card holder studying in this country legally — is targeted, retaliatory, and an extreme attack on his First Amendment rights,”
But, sure, they are wrong, and you are right. These bastards!
Monte
Mar 10 2025 at 3:59pm
Lest we forget, Biden was guilty of the very same things you’re criticizing Trump for.
Jose Pablo
Mar 10 2025 at 4:50pm
Yes! And many before Biden as well.
FDR was probably the worst offender.
Lyndon B. Johnson was arguably the most despicable person ever to hold the presidency, even worse than Trump.
And among governors, George Wallace of Alabama stands out. I believe he is the most likely role model for Trump when it comes to clinging to power in 4 years.
But you’re right, the real issue is a design problem. The fundamental flaw of American liberal democracy is the vast amount of unchecked power concentrated in the hands of the president. Given how few true emergencies the presidency has actually had to handle, this level of power concentrated in just one man makes no sense and is more potentially harmful than beneficial.
Accepting this flaw simply because the power is now being used to advance causes we support is a dangerous mistake, just as dangerous as accepting it because past presidents have abused it and now “it’s our turn.” Before long, it will be their turn again.
That, I believe, is the main argument in Jon’s very interesting post.
Monte
Mar 10 2025 at 5:52pm
Please don’t misinterpret my response as a full-throated endorsement of Trump or his policies. Some of the things he has said and done are truly cringeworthy. I agree with everything you say. Like most, I’m anxious for us to move past the politics and politicians you mention and back to responsible government by true statesmen (both of which, I fear, have become ancient relics).
Jose Pablo
Mar 10 2025 at 1:53pm
That’s a great post, Jon (and I am afraid, it could be courageous by the standards of a few years from now).
But even more interesting is the “political philosophy” corollary of your observations.
If even the U.S. presidency is susceptible to authoritarian abuse and nationalistic dystopia, or to a woke dystopia (which, as you rightly point out, makes little difference from the individual’s perspective), then what are the structural solutions that prevent these “deals with the devil” for ocurring in the future?
The Founding Fathers sought to limit the arbitrariness of government. Hamilton, for instance, warned that the greatest danger to American democracy could be an “excess of legislation”. And he had no idea what that would look like in the age of Trump executive orders!
But they, ultimately, strepitously failed in that regard. Given power’s natural tendency toward arbitrariness—especially executive power, which is concentrated in a single individual and, as Trump has demonstrated, can be particularly capricious—how can this authoritarian drift be further restrained, if not entirely prevented?
Jon Murphy
Mar 10 2025 at 2:00pm
An important question, and one not easy to answer. The glib answer would be “Well, just don’t let those powers expand in the first place,” but that’s not very helpful, is it?
There is no silver bullet, but at least my goal is to push these points into the public eye. In other words, innoculate against the very seduction discussed here. I do not appeal to politicians’ better nature, but directly to readers, to people. Perhaps push that needle just enough to prevent expansion of arbitrary powers.
Who knows if I will be successful or not? But, at the very least, I keep the torch of liberty lit through my writing. Darkness cannot win so long as there is even a sliver of light.
Jose Pablo
Mar 10 2025 at 2:13pm
I keep the torch of liberty lit through my writing.
No doubt, one of the noblest pursuits.
It reminds me, though, of the old joke about the entomologist and God:
An entomologist, chasing a butterfly, fell off a cliff and found himself dangling precariously from a tree branch. Desperate, he cried out, “God, please help me!”
God answered with His powerful voice: “Have faith, my son, and I will protect you. Let go of the branch, and I will send an army of my most trusted angels, who will flap their mighty wings and rescue you.”
Stunned, the man hesitated, then cried back, “Thank you, Lord, but… is there anyone else up there?“
Jon Murphy
Mar 10 2025 at 4:37pm
I literally laughed out loud at that joke.
I honestly wish I had a satisfying answer to your question. I don’t.