. . . "It's shutting down authoritarian anarchy that pretends constitutionalism," I wrote yesterday.
But "you can't have anarchy and authoritarianism in a government at the same time," asserts a Facebook friend.
Is that so? Consider:
Obama's authoritarianism is expressed in his rejection of the rules of freedom (e.g., Declaration of Independence, where the center of gravity for human freedom is the Creator, not the state) and relies ultimately on raw power to impose his vision upon Americans (e.g., financial penalties, unending regulation, police, military, domestic spying, and so on).
It is anarchy because behind the mere form of governance is mob rule, czarist rule, unaccountable rule, a kind of lawlessness under the thumb of whoever happens to be occupying the White House.
Anarchy can be expressed not just in social chaos and the absence of form, but also in the authoritarianism of the mob and of the absolutized individual, while maintaining the pretense of form.
A 60s-style Hippie can be utterly authoritarian.