One major problem with these descriptions of inverted totalitarianism is how subject they become to ideological preference, even by those who create them. Note that Sheldon Wolin came up with his definition in 2003 during the hysterical Bush years (hysterical on the part of both the government with its war on terror justifications and by the progressive left for styling Bush as a new Hitler).
Would he have applied the same label to the same things under Obama later? After all, the later president expanded on nearly everything Bush did and took it to new levels. Trump after him did the same thing in many ways too.
In all cases, criticism is often divided along ideological lines against tendencies that can be used in either direction with just as much evil or authoritarian intent, and this selective blindness by critics becomes idiotica and absurd.
" The unpalatable truth is that many ministers in Government today rose through the ranks of a British socialist movement that was heavily influenced - and even controlled - by the Kremlin in Moscow. "
" As the Spectator says: 'Indeed, New Labour, which has governed since 1997, cannot be understood unless these communist influences are taken into account.
'Many of New Labour's characteristics - its deep suspicion of outsiders, its structural hostility to democratic debate, its secrecy, its faith in bureaucracy, the embedded preference for striking deals out of the public eye, and its ruthless reliance on a small group of trusted activists, result from the lengthy detente with the Kremlin.' "
So russia is not only causing trouble in Ukraine, it also seriously affected politics here in the UK. And it might be why we are living in such a precarious situation, when it comes to our liberties, here in 2023.
Would he have applied the same label to the same things under Obama later? After all, the later president expanded on nearly everything Bush did and took it to new levels. Trump after him did the same thing in many ways too.
In all cases, criticism is often divided along ideological lines against tendencies that can be used in either direction with just as much evil or authoritarian intent, and this selective blindness by critics becomes idiotica and absurd.