Turkey And The Trend To Authoritarianism
by Barkley Rosser
Turkey And The Trend To Authoritarianism
The big surprise in the Turkish referendum to make Turkey a presidential system was not that Erdogan’s side won, but that it was close enough that opponents are charging fraud based on ballots not being counted properly. It may in fact be that it really did lose by a narrow margin, as some I know said it would. But, officially it won by a bit more than Hillary beat Trump and a bit less than Brexit won by. What strikes me is how the voting patterns in all of these three resemble each other, even as they differ in many ways on economic, nationalistic, and religious grounds, not to mention broader historical issues.
So the big similarity is that they all seem to have exhibited a pattern of the winning side (not in pop votes in the US) being rural traditional voters in the heartlands of these countries, this not holding in UK where all counties supported the losing Remain side, against urban and higher educated and more secular or minority laden areas. Southwestern Wisconsin switched from Obama to Trump, Northern England came in strong for Brexit, and central Turkey aside from Ankara came in for Erdogan’s referendum. Is there a commonality here, global populism?
It may be, but the differences between the countries on the categories of economics, nationalism, and religion are notable. One should not forecast too far into the future about future elections based on this, just to note a more political issue, in the UK the Brexit vote was not obviously authoritarian, with many Brexiteers supporting freedom from supposedly oppressive and undemocratic EU regulators, even if they may have been misled to some degree. In the US, many see Trump as authoritarianb, but some voting for him think he is bringing freedom of some sort, maybe as the Sons of Liberty in Texas fought for the freedom to own slaves. In Turkey this matter is pretty unequivocal, with Erdogan declaring a third round of martial law after imprisoning thousands of innocent people on trumped up charges after the failed Gulenist coup attempt last summer. He is full bore authoritarian, but then he is seeking to replace Ataturk, who was also very authoritarian.
On economics the US and UK look more similar and less like Turkey, although all three have experienced economic problems. In the US and UK, they superficially look good, growing more than many other OECD nations, but they also have very high inequality compared to those other nations, with the outcome that the majority in both nations are not doing better economically. Both have old industrial areas suffering from import competition where an anti-foreigner appeal has a lot of appeal, and did so in crucial states in the US, and portions of England, although not Scotland, where every county voted for Remain. Turkey does not have the extreme inequality or the problem of old industrial areas facing import competition, but after a decade of substantial growth under Erdogan’s rule prior to 2012, it has slowed down since and actually had negative per capita income growth in 2015 (have not seen 2016 numbers yet). It is different in Turkey, but the economy is not doing all that well, although this may have fed into the low support for Erdogan’s referendum.
I see convergence on nationalism. In all three there has been an appeal to an ethnic core based nationalism, WASPs or whites more generally in the US, English in UK, and traditional Sunni Turks in Turkey. For whatever reason, in all three nations those core groups have responded strongly.
The matter of religion is more subtle and complicated, but has been dragged into the other two. So in both the US and UK anti-Muslim sentiment has been key, with this easily coinciding with anti-immigrant and foreigner appeals that feed into both the economic and nationalistic arguments. In Turkey it is pro-traditional Sunni Islam that is the key, with the large religious minority Alevis viewed as enemies, along with the ethnic Kurds. The central long term game of Erdogan is to undo the secular Turkish state of Ataturk and replace it with a neo-Ottoman Empire approach, although in the vein of the Young Turks of 1905, with a religious Sultan in charge, even if he does not claim to be Caliph.
Indeed the contradictions on all this for Turkey show up in the matter of Daesh/ISIL where Turkey has gone back and forth, long letting arms and people flow to their areas in Syria to keep the Kurds at bay and dump on Assad. Now they have been cut off from that, and have flipped on their relations with fellow authoritarian Putin in Russia. They seem completely confused, with Trump congratulating Erdogan on his referendum and mostly praising him, even as Trump has sent US troops to back the leftist Kurds fighting Daesh/ISIL in Syria because, hey, they are the only ones willing to go to Raqqa and beat those creeps, just as Obama had figured out some time ago.
Barkley Rosser
Probably worth noting that the “Sons of Liberty” above are the “Order of the Sons of Liberty,” related to the Knights of the Golden Circle. Nothing misleading about the post, but those looking for more information might like the full name.
Barkley,
Have you forgotten that in 2010 a Dem Congress claimed it had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate our economic decisions?
Many consider the mandate of PPACA as authoritarian, what do you say?
I agree with you that nationalism is once again an important issue in global politics, but given the choice between open borders nonsense and each country being in control of its borders, I hardly think it surprising that Hillary lost to Trump, or that the Brits chose Brexit.
Mike,
PPACA is no more authoritarian than Medicare or Social Security, much less requiring people to have insurance for their cars in order to legally drive. Do not be silly.
Countries have the right to control their borders, but doing so on the basis of racism is not admirable. I also note that while I disagree with Brexit, I do not consider May to be authoritarian. I do consider Erdogan to be so, and Trump to have very strong tendencies in that direction.
Barklay,
Are you denying the plain language of the PPCACA mandate, and what lower courts held (see Judge Gladys Kessler’s opinion in Meade v. Holder), and what Ginsberg et el stated in NFIB regarding the mandate and the CC, or are you just unaware?
From PPACA:
EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.—The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial
decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased
Gladys Kessler (Mead v. Holder):
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Congress had
a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially affects the national health insurance market. Consequently, Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power when it enacted § 1501
Ginsberg et al(NFIB):
First, Congress has the power to regulate economic activities “that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005). This capacious power extends even to local activities that, viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. See ibid. See also Wickard, 317 U. S., at 125 (“[E]ven if appellee’s activ- ity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
If the mandate had merely been a tax on income with a corresponding tax benefit to those who purchased an approved insurance plan there would have nee no challenge. You might recall that President Obama during his 2008 campaign against Hillary actually chided her for the mandate in her plan. But the idea that a crisis ought not go to waste was too great and the Dems, and so rather than going the income tax route, they sought to have the courts rubber stamp the idea that Congress can control how each person spends his money even after paying all his income taxes. It was an insane power grab. so much so that Dems do not want to admit it even happened and would rather put the mandate down the memory hole.
First, it is Barkley and not Barklay.
I thought Beverly did a pretty handy job of trashing your arguments on the mandate so we re not going to debate case law here. The last time I looked, Congress wrote the PPACA and Obama signed it. Repubs had a chance to add their input and they chose not to do so to a man or woman for that matter. While we are on the topic you brought up Obama, lets talk about his first 100 days.
“During his transition period, Obama had been focused on finding bipartisan support for a stimulus plan to stop the bleeding of jobs and home foreclosures and managed to get it passed in eight days, with support from a handful of Republicans. He passed a budget resolution and signed major legislation on worker’s rights and health care that had been stalled or vetoed under President George W. Bush. Obama also issued executive orders on numerous topics, from closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay to new government ethics rules. At the 100-day mark, 65 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing, with only 29 percent disapproving.” Digsby
And Trump’s first 100 days? We will skip the approval rating as it is the lowest ever achieved by a new president.
The magical-deal maker has yet to produce one piece of legislation other than the killing of momma bears and her cubs while hibernating. Still waiting for the Wall to be built with Mexico paying for it. Trump did so well on that deal, Mexico would like to renegotiate NAFTA, renegotiate to suit their needs more than the US. For the 1100 jobs at Carrier Trump did not save, if NAFTA goes away, so will millions of jobs especially in light of the tariff Trumps wishes to impose.
But there are the executive orders, aren’t there???
Here is a good Executive Order he signed; Trump essentially defunds Planned Parenthood giving certain states the ability to withhold Title X funding. McConnell pops off at the mouth the Feds should be allowing states to decide what they should fund and what they should not fund. In particular, McConnell is referencing abortions. Except, except Title X federal funding can not be used for abortions. 97% of the funding Planned Parenthood spends goes to other programs and excludes abortions.
Other Legislative Highlights???
The AHCA which was going to be so much cheaper for the insured would disenfranchise 14 million people in the first two years and a total 24 million in 10 years. Besides putting us back to pre-2006 numbers, the AHCA was going to be so great and wonderful for who? the 1% of the household taxpayers making >$500,000 annually who would no long have to pay a capital gains tax or taxes on income >$200,000 for individuals and >$250,000 for joint returns. Millionaires walk away with a kool $50,000 tax save and Medicare loses funding.
And the new and even better AHCA the Randian Paul Ryan has come up with is even greater and more wonderful yet. We force those with pre-existing conditions and serious illnesses into state run high risk insurance pools and underfund them so they can barely get any benefit much less afford to pay for them. In other words die quickly with no cost to Republicans. Also do away with the 62 preventative healthcare which is mandatory in insurance coverage. What the hell, kids do not need inoculations, women breast cancer screenings, etc.
And you are concerned about the mandate while 4 or more million citizens are trapped in states ruled by stone-age-Republicans and denied healthcare coverage under that SCOTUS ruling because Repubs were more concerned about handing then President Obama his first defeat by repealing the PPACA rather than finding a solution.
All the case law you cite does not stand-up to the lack of common sense you seem to lack Mike. This really does not have much to do with the law as it does repealing something which has helped millions of people afford healthcare, given them healthcare which they desperately were in need of, and slowed the rising cost of healthcare in the nation. Wait a minute sniff, sniff; I smell a shyster in our midst. Go away with your lame arguments as they do not stand up to logical conclusion.
Run,
You seem to lack focus. The OP’s topic was the trend to authoritarianism. My point was that the trend started much earlier.
Beverly, like Barkley in his reply, flat out denied that the mandate of PPACA was a regulation of a person’s decisions. The plain text of PPACA and the court decisions say otherwise. You can deny it until the cows come home but it is written in black and white.
Seems you like authoritarianism as long as the results (“free” healthcare for all) are in line with your goals. I guess that could be said of everyone except for the anarchists. Even libertarians want some law and order and so the question might be better viewed as how much authoritarianism are we (individually and collectively) willing to accept?
I agree with Barkley that the trend is towards more authoritarianism, but it isn’t all coming from one side of the political divide or the other. Venezuela is a left wing shithole but not even mentioned in the OP.
If the Republicans claim Congress can regulate each person’s economic decisions in furtherance of one of their utopian projects then maybe you will think differently about such ridiculously broad readings of government power.
Mike:
There is no lack of focus here. There is a lack of legal interpretation on your part and Beverly disagreed with your interpretation.
Your point is that you do not like that you have to have a defined insurance. Too bad, I do not like having to pay taxes to cover people who refuse to carry insurance and need healthcare. You can deny that till the cows come home too Mike; but, it is true. I guess we could give you a choice, opt in or sign your life away. If you get ill, in an accident, etc. and you are not insured; we do not treat you and let you die. Why should you place the responsibility of care on me? This is what you are arguing for rather than a defined plan like the PPACA. A little tyranny of the minority.
“Beverly, like Barkley in his reply, flat out denied that the mandate of PPACA was a regulation of a person’s decisions.”
And they are right. You just have to decide not to have too much deducted from your paycheck. If you owe the IRS, there is no enforcement mechanism for the penalty. Only if you are due a refund can they hold back from your refund the mandate penalty.
I see references to comments by Beverly, but i see no such comments.
Mike, regulation is not authoritarianism. Democratically elected leaders in the executive and legislative branches developed this system of health insurance in the US. As Run notes, the status quo ante allowed certain people to free ride on others with regards to their health insurance, thus allowing one person to rip another off. The new system reduces that, although from what I gather, enforcement of the mandate has been very skimpy and weak. This is not remotely comparable to Erdogan throwing 50,000 people in jail for questioning him or even arresting immigrants outside courthouses who are trying to get their status legalized and deporting them before they have a chance to fix their status.
Oh, and I am not a fan of Maduro in Venezuela, but that has been an authoritarian nation for some time, not a sudden new development like we see in the US and Turkey.
Barkley,
Erdogan was democratically elected so no worries about whatever regulation he might impose, eh?
PPACA makes the free rider problem worse by compelling some to fund the free ridership of others by way of requiring them to purchase insurance plans that do not need. Sure it forces certain persons to purchase health insurance who otherwise would not, but it also forces some others to purchase more insurance than they need or would otherwise purchase. The previous system encouraged people to buy Cadillac plans which allowed Insurance companies to make money while hospitals were able to absorb the costs for those who could not or would not pay for their care. In short the government could have solved the problem by focusing on incentives but instead chose to go the mandate route -authoritarianism is on the rise and has been for quite some time.
Does Congress have plenary power over our economic decisions or is this supposed power merely concomitant? If plenary then I suppose we violate the Dormant CC each time we exercise our free will to buy a candy bar or Big Mac rather than what Congress has instructed us to buy.
In 2007, forty million persons in the United States were uninsured in 2007. 57% of the uninsured used medical services that year. The average individual cost attributable to the uninsured is about $2,000 per person each year.
More than one third of the cost of treatments provided to uninsured patients is paid for by the uninsured patients. Another percentage is paid for by Government resource to hospitals a 15% cost target is reached and through Medicaid. There are only two other possible reasons why the medical providers do not collect the remaining cost.
– Many of the patients do not have the means to make the payments much less afford to purchase insurance either. Free-rider is not an apt description of persons in this category or a poverty predicament.
– Those who have the means but do not pay is a situation attributable to the collection methods employed by the medical providers. Likely the reason for a failure to collect is that the amount involved is too small to justify the cost of pursuing collection. Happens all the time and not just medical.
As Avrik Roy at Forbes might tell you also, healthcare insurance companies rank much lower in profitability than the 21% attributable to pharma or 18% attributable to hospital supply industry. Healthcare insurance is not a profitable business and only had greater profits due to the numbers of patients acquired. Those that withdrew, Co-ops going out of business, increased premiums, and losing money can be more aptly assigned to Sessions, Upton and Kingston messing with the Risk Corridor program in the 2015 Omnibus Act signed December 16, 2014. This was meant to cover pre-existing conditions and severe illness (save the appropriations discussion. I already know it). Repubs killed it in an effort to defund the PPACA. It was scored at $12 billion in revenue by the CBO.
The incentive for those who can afford insurance is not to pay a small penalty. It is better than being denied care, which a hospital can do beyond stabilization if they know you can afford it. Why do I get the feeling you are making >$250,000, are in the individuals market with no subsidy, and have to pay the capitals tax and tax for an income >$250,000? Much of the complaining is coming from the 9 or so million (or minority) in that predicament.
This site is infested with idiotic trolls (some of whom write posts). Not sure what the solution is, but it is a big shame.
(P.S. Re Mike Hansberry – the government also provides lots of roads and raises taxes to pay for them. For the bedridden this is clearly an authoritarian imposition – of course they could be asked to pay the cost of the roads involved in any deliveries to them explicitly. Sometimes, it is not really a philosophical question of “freedom” but a simple question of “practicality”. The most important freedom is freedom of belief, followed closely by freedom of speech and reciprocal accountability. The rest is just details. Mike Hansberry is obsessed with minor details.)