Paradise Lost: Why Americans have trouble with their idea of Authority?

Cultural and philosophical shifts in thinking between the 40s and 60s in the United States were reactions one after the other partly as a result of social engineering and enforcement of social rules (or pressures). This history demonstrates the illusion of free choice and individualism in the U.S., particularly in our present time. The very obvious and unapologetic authoritarian approach of the current “post-constitutionalist” U.S. administration led me to circle back to this conversation.

Adam Curtis argued that one possible future for us, would be the erosion of individualism and individual freedom. From studying the shifts of the fifties and sixties, did we ever have it really?

I had argued about notions of Authority and Conformity in Where Authority Lies: Republicanism, Liberalism, and Progressive Morality, that I will continue to explain providing context through documentary work from David Hoffman and Adam Curtis.

Americans believe in their form of government in different ways depending on their political pathology and alignment, and one of the important things is to understand what is Authority in a Democracy, or a Republic (classical and post-1500s).

In this period, many Americans do adopt the life of a mere consumerist-materialist; and in life, it is believe one ought to have the freedom and liberty to act and do as one pleases. This was not always the idea.

Now, what is “Authority” to an American? It varies even to the Conservative or the Liberal. Would the American define Republicanism as inherently imperialistic? I have argued such a thing to challenge the typical distinction people have between a Republic and Democratic State from Monarchy and Empire.

Would the American define so-called “Liberal Democracy” as Totalitarian? They would not. The American sees the United States as originally and in an idealized true form as perfect and just. I will say, that there inherently exists a thin line between Anglo-American Liberalism and Totalitarianism, which one must examine. The United States has a very tough history with the question, “What is Authority?”

It appears, that this term democracy is also used to support philosophical and culturally shifting views in our period defined by the post-sixties about Authority, which did not exist prior to the nineteen-sixties. During this period and after for example, there is an erosion of several virtues of Republicanism, such as duty. People try to define Liberalism, e.g., as something opposed to Authority and Duty.

Even though the term Liberalism, especially as a political ideology did not exist prior to the nineteenth-century, we find in the 60s-70s the conflation of liberality and libertinism. A denouncement or rebellion against authority (of the parent and government) is seen as freedom and liberty, but in historical context, the Beatniks and Hippies come about as a reaction to a period of social repression in the fifties. Young adults in the forties give a different account of their times from those experiencing the fifties and so on.

Traditionalists define modern notions of morality as an absence of morality, but even this so-called “absence of morality” and “authority” defines what is moral and what is not moral, and also what is authority and what is not authority. The history shows the malleability of these notions, not their permanency.¹

Certain forms of (or which represent) authority emerged prior to and after the sixties.

Who and What is Authority? Who and What gives and defines our values? After World War II and with the development in technology of television, there is a more deliberate effort from the government to engineer and manage familial and societal norms.

During the Presidency of G.W. Bush Jr., Americans were increasingly introduced to greater surveillance and evolving militarized police.

Many Americans lazily ascribe all this to the emergence of Fascism in the United States. It is easier for them to blame their troubles on external ideologies poisoning them, but it is not entirely the case. This is why we’re not able to defeat “Wjite Nationalism,” which was a problem long before Fascism. We fail to be honest to ourselves, and understand historical developments and logical consequences in several overlapping ideologies in American thinking. This is in reference to topics such as politics, law and race.

In the 1960s, what provoked the 1960s, was that administrations were solely interested in maintaining white male-dominance, religious, and racial quotas.

The stultifying 1950s created the 1960s, but minorities were excluded and segregated, and so therefore were not the targets of the Baby Boom social engineering propaganda. This was because, Black Americans had stronger family values then.

Many Baby Boomers felt the 1950s was stultifying, and this led to a rebellious reaction in the 1960s.

The United States government is considered to be a Democracy, yet it (and the West) defines what is normative society and what is human. This normative domination extends its security (or surveillance) globally. However, in our society, this surveillance, authority, domination, police also act as an internal policeman in every single person.

1. It was once believed, that as time goes on, people will become more liberal, and that “Liberalism” as a political force would dominate till the end of time. It never ruled in the beginning of time. How could that be? Therefore, we can and should consider development of new competing political philosophy. ↩︎