Introduction
The word “authoritarian” has flowed in and out of common usage in the American vernacular for centuries. In the past the word has been used to describe the dictatorial nature of countries with the which the United States has a negative relationship. Most popularly, Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba have all been subject to American disdain for their political systems. Describing them as authoritarian gave the word an especially bad reputation within the United States, a country well known for its democratic principles, a concept directly opposed to authoritarian regimes. However, although the word itself may not have lost its negative connotation, the principles it represents have become increasingly favorable to a significant number of certain members of the United States population. (Taub 2016) This favorability is significant because there is a direct correlation between people who voted for the 45th president of the U.S., Donald Trump, and authoritarian tendencies. Meaning, the greater the authoritarian tendencies within someone, the higher the likelihood they voted for Donald Trump to become president in the 2016 presidential elections. (Taub 2016) The lean toward authoritarianism did not begin with Trump, nor will it most likely end with him. Trump is a symptom of a much bigger illness. According to the Center for American Progress, the rise of favorability toward authoritarian government in the U.S. can be attributed to multiple different factors including increasing political partisanship, cultural and demographic changes, and economics. (Kennedy, Rohac, and Sing 2018) In order to combat this move toward authoritarianism, at least one of these causes must be addressed. A Universal Basic Income, or UBI, would help address the economic grievances of Americans who have been most strongly affected by wage stagnation, and consequently income inequality.
Problem statement
The United States is unique. Since the protestants first arrived in North America from Europe fleeing religious persecution and authoritarian governments, the concepts of democracy, freedom, and equality have been core values amongst the people and their colonial governing system. The pilgrims were not perfect in their fight for a different world, as women, people of color, and religions other than Christianity were certainly not granted the freedoms afforded many others. However, within a few hundred years colonial America quickly became a safe haven for those being persecuted for simply being who they were and refusing to bend to the status quo. In 1776 the United States started an experiment never before seen on the face of the Earth. The monarchy had been defeated and democracy became the order of the day. Like the pilgrims before them, Americans were not perfect initially, and they still are not to this day. However, a few core values have remained steady throughout the entire history of the country as things to strive toward, and as a direction to look in during times of great confusion and chaos. Throughout the most partisan and hardest times in American history, the Civil War, the Great Depression, the attack on 9/11, these values never wavered. Democracy, freedom, and equality are woven into the fabric of the United States so tightly it seemed they could never be removed, and despite the incredible divisiveness and partisanship present in American society today, this still remains true.
In 2016 the United States elected a president who demonstrates the biggest threat to American democracy in the history of the country. Not only does Donald Trump threaten American democracy, but he represents a form of government considered the exact antithesis of democracy, authoritarianism. The number of authoritarian tendencies exhibited by Trump grow larger every day and the damage he is doing to democratic American political institutions is extreme. However, it is important to note that Trump is not the sole perpetrator of authoritarianism in America, but rather, he is a symptom of a much larger problem the United States has faced since the 1960s.
A student at the University of Massachusetts named Mathew MacWilliams conducted a study which measured the correlation between authoritarian tendencies and voting for Donald Trump. Authoritarianism has traditionally been seen as a political ideology, which is not wrong, however MacWilliams believes it should also be analyzed as a psychological concept. Authoritarian tendencies within a person can be described as “a desire for order and a fear of outsiders.” Authoritarians are also more vulnerable to fear-mongering, as they naturally express feelings of fear at higher rates than other people. Oftentimes, this fear is misplaced or exaggerated and will lead them to seek out a strong leader who can restore order to chaos and to defeat people they view as enemies. Authoritarian politicians take advantage of the present fears in those with relatively dormant authoritarian favorability and stoke them rather than try to dispel them. In the 1960s, the GOP began to paint itself as the party in favor of traditional values, and law and order. This led many who had authoritarian tendencies but who may have voted democrat because of their economic policy, which favored the working class, to begin voting for the Republican Party because of their promises to restore order to a country in chaos due to the Civil Rights movement. It would be irresponsible to ignore the obvious racist roots of this move to the GOP, as many of the fears held by the party shifters were in response to the increase demands for African Americans to be treated equally to white Americans. These demands threatened the white stronghold on American government and society and were leading to huge changes in society as Americans knew it. However, for the purpose of this paper those roots will not be discussed in depth. Republicans promised their constituents they would stop these dramatic societal changes and return “order” to the United States, whereas many liberal democrats supported the changes taking place. As authoritarian voters began to switch political parties, Republicans became increasingly answerable to these new members of their party. The promises the GOP made would have to be kept, or the voters may have either returned to the Democrats or Republican politicians would be voted out of office. As authoritarians began to flood the Republican party, the party’s policies and ideals shifted to mirror its new members. It is important to note the difference in policy preference between authoritarian Republicans who feared social change above all else and traditional members of the GOP who believed in small government and a free-market economy. As time went on, Republicans began to lose their cohesive party identity and this split culminated in the 2016 election with 17 Republican presidential candidates and a win by Donald Trump. Many would argue that Donald Trump is not the first presidential manifestation of authoritarianism in the U.S.. Cultural critic Henry Giroux argues that the administration of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney was a massive shift toward authoritarian government.
“For those who cling to the illusion of democracy, even in its damaged forms, the issues that appear the most harmful to democracy are the war in Iraq, the record trade deficit, a soaring budget deficit, the attack on immigrants and people of color, the assault on civil liberties, and the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and elite corporations.” (Giroux 2006, pgs. 1-2)
The economic issues listed by Giroux present in 2006 have not changed even 12 years later, and the authoritarian tendencies have gotten much worse. Even George W. Bush has been outspoken against many of the Trump administration’s policies and much of its rhetoric. (Taub 2016, Giroux 2006)
In the results of the aforementioned study, MacWilliams found that support for Trump and authoritarian views strongly correlated, and in fact, authoritarian views were the biggest indicator for support for Trump. Additionally, two political psychologists at the University of Minnesota found a tendency for highly partisan people with authoritarian sentiments to lean toward the right side of the political spectrum. Trump falls under this category. Throughout the 2016 election, Trump labeled himself as the voice of the people, and even after he lost the popular election claimed that a majority of Americans wanted him in office embracing the populist message wholeheartedly. This despite the fact that his opponent Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote. Populists often use claims such as that to legitimize their position in office. Trump has also used increasing distrust in government and polarization to emphasize the necessity of his involvement in government. Only he can fix the problems faced by Americans, only he can fix the problems in government. According to Foreign Policy, since Trump has been in office, he has begun showing the classic signs of authoritarian leaders: successfully pursued efforts to intimidate the media, promoted fearmongering, and demonized the opposition. Perhaps the most significant example of these is the Justice Department attempting to prosecute protestors who demonstrated on Trump’s inauguration day and were arrested, a clear attempt to silence dissent among civilians. (Taub 2016, Kennedy, Rohac, and Sing 2018, Walt 2017, Linker 2017, Federico and Tagar 2013)
A rise in authoritarianism in the U.S. has and will lead to incredible political implications if it is not stopped. Authoritarian governments are significantly less stable than democratic ones because of their inability to allow peaceful transition of power, “democracies have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to endure, adapt, and recover.” (Roylance 2015) There will inevitably be crises that occur within any political system, it is a country’s ability to recover from these crises that measures its longevity and success. Authoritarian countries like China must resort to artificial methods to maintain economic growth and to avoid financial crises because they recognize this weakness within their governments. “The basic problem at the core of the Chinese economy is that it needs to be dramatically restructured to remain healthy. But Chinese leaders appear either unable or unwilling to make those changes, held back by the unusual nature of China’s authoritarian, one-party political system.” (Fisher 2015) If the U.S. were to continue down this road toward authoritarianism, our ability to successfully recover from an economic collapse would shrink, and with increasing levels of economic inequality economic failure seems eminent. It has been hypothesized that income inequality and financial crises are linked. Income inequality concentrates power in Wall Street giants, which would lead to the promotion of economic policies which benefit those at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy. The policies promoted, most likely to include deregulation and tax breaks, contribute to the instability of the economy. Also, people at the opposite end of the spectrum, the poorest Americans, would be incentivized to make decisions which put the system in jeopardy because they have less to lose. (Fisher 2015, Roylance 2015, Story 2010)
The current level of inequality in the U.S. can be attributed to wage stagnation and rising income inequality. In the late 1970s, the government began to enact policies which benefited the top 1% of Americans. Multiple federal monetary policies, deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and de-unionization were what began the current levels of wage stagnation and inequality. Moves to reverse these policies will help address these issues. (Baranoff 2015)
Policy Solution
A rising GDP is oftentimes cited as a good measure of a successful economy; however, this measurement does not provide an adequate representation of socioeconomic growth among citizens. Rising levels of inequality are more accurate indicators of the true state of a country’s economy. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) would provide the best solution to the problem of rising levels of income inequality in the United States. Scholars such as Philippe Van Parjs argue that such a radical change is necessary because past attempts at social welfare programs have failed, leaving the public open to being convinced a new idea like UBI might work. (Clark and Kavanagh 1996)
In January of 2017, Finland started UBI in a trial of 2,000 unemployed citizens ages 25 to 58. Each person receives 560 euros a month for two years without risk of the payments changing or stopping if the participants find a job. The purpose of the trial was to see if an unconditional income would incentivize people to find employment. The results of the study will not be released until 2019, however there are many critics of the trial who say it was not done correctly. The purpose of the study was to remove factors which may disincentivize unemployed people from finding work. A common critique from opponents of welfare are that receiving government benefits disincentivizes people from finding work, because once they find work, they will stop getting money from the government. Critics of the Finnish experiment say it should have had more participants and lasted longer than two years, the experiment as a whole was too small in scale. As aforementioned, it is preemptive to say whether a different experiment would have yielded better results, but it is important to note that Finland has other social welfare programs which are incredibly successful. Most university students in Finland get 350 euros a month from the government and pay absolutely to tuition fees. Also, families with low incomes receive housing allowances in addition to being eligible to benefit from over 40 other income redistribution policies. The poverty and income inequality levels in Finland are some of the lowest in the entire world, meaning the Finnish are doing something right. (Jauhiainen and Makinen 2018, Henly 2018)
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has defined UBI as “a cash transfer of an equal amount to all individuals in a country.” (Schulze 2017) Unlike other welfare systems where amounts differ depending on the household, every citizen would get the same amount. Although it may seem like UBI is a relatively new concept, the concept has been around since the 18th century when Thomas Paine (an American) mentioned his proposal for payments “made to every person, rich or poor” in a work entitled “Agrarian Justice.” The concept reemerged in the 1960s when Martin Luther King Junior spoke of a “guaranteed income” as a method for reducing poverty levels. However, arguably the most popular proposal for UBI was made by Milton Friedman in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. In the book, Friedman gives 5 major reasons he supports what he refers to as a “negative income tax” not UBI. First, it would replace all other welfare programs provided by the government, simplifying the current bureaucratic welfare system. Second, it allows all recipients to freely participate in the economic market, supporting the capitalist system. When welfare recipients are allocated money for specific items, they are removed from the free market and cannot freely contribute to the successes or failures of businesses. Third, recipients are not penalized for working. The current welfare system in the U.S. reduces aid the more money a household makes, with a negative income tax, the money would not change. This would encourage recipients to work so they could make more money. Fourth, it would incentivize charity and voluntary work. When one lives paycheck to paycheck, there is no opportunity for work with no compensation. A negative income tax would remove the requirement that one always be earning money, because people would be more financially secure. Fifth, negative income tax would treat everyone equally, with no opportunity for discrimination as is seen in the current welfare system. (Schulze 2017, Orfalea 2015)
Although there are multiple ways UBI can be implanted, the best proposal for a UBI for the United States comes from Charles Murray in “A guaranteed income for every American.” Murray proposes that starting at 21 years of age, every American citizen would begin to receive $13,000 dollars a year divided into monthly instalments. However, $3,000 must go toward health insurance, allowing for $10,000 to be spent freely. Once a person begins to earn over $30,000 a year their annual UBI amount would begin to decrease through a surtax. The lowest the UBI could drop would be $6,500 when the person makes upwards of $60,000 annually. An individual’s UBI would be unable to drop lower than that. Murray proposes paying for this version of UBI by completely eliminating all other forms of social welfare. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. would all cease to exist. Thus, citizens continue to receive UBI even after passing the $60,000 threshold because they would still need funds to make up for the loss of all these other programs. By 2020, the new proposed UBI program would be almost a trillion dollars less expensive than the current welfare system. (Murray 2016)
Under this system those on both sides of the political spectrum should be satisfied. The government would be simultaneously helping to raise people out of poverty, reducing its spending, and reducing its number of welfare programs. Most importantly, UBI would address a concern held by almost all Americans. The increasing number of jobs being lost to automated systems. Murray cites studies which place the percentage of American jobs at risk for automation between 9% and 47%. In either extreme scenario, and all those in between, the American people face a serious problem. This problem was at the forefront of the 2016 election, with conservative candidates promising to bring automated jobs and jobs overseas back to the United States blue-collar workers, an impossible feat. Liberal candidates proposed investment in job training for modern blue-collar jobs in renewable energy and computer science. Neither “solution” is sustainable long term, whereas UBI allows for job numbers to ebb and flow without the extreme repercussions we’ve seen the past few years. (Murray 2016)
As aforementioned, economic struggles were not the only reason authoritarians voted for Trump, but a deeper social divide between Americans, enhanced by the GOP’s fearmongering has also contributed. “The real threat to our republic is an alarming breakdown in social cohesion, and the cause of this breakdown is obvious: radical, rising economic inequality, and the anger and anxiety it engenders.” (Hanauer et al. 2017) However, relieving the economic pressure faced by so many Americans would expose the fearmongering perpetrated by the current administration and prevent minority groups from being blamed for the financial hardships faced by many Americans. No one can be blamed for a problem that does not exist. UBI would help significantly decrease, the intensity at which poverty is felt in the United States.
Conclusion
The rise of favorability toward authoritarianism in the United States has led to increased violence, partisanship, and gridlock to detrimental levels. If this rise is not reversed, America’s political institutions will continue to deteriorate until they are unrecognizable and 100% ineffective. The current authoritarian tendencies can be attributed to the present levels of income inequality and anxiety due to fear of “outsiders”. Fears which are supported and encouraged by the current administration. The rise of income inequality in the U.S. is the direct result of economic policies including de-regulation, de-unionization, and tax breaks for the richest Americans. A Universal Basic Income as a replacement for all other welfare programs, would not only reduce poverty levels, but it would also significantly lower government spending. The removal of the current welfare programs would pay for the new system. Through UBI, unemployed recipients would be incentivized to find work and would be unable to compare their welfare amount to anyone else because everyone would receive the same amount. With a backup system like UBI in place, for the increasing number of American’s whose jobs are being taken by automated systems, job loss would not automatically lead to poverty. As Americans begin to get back on their feet economically, resentment toward and fear of minority groups should lower leading to less of a tendency toward authoritarian leaders. However, the authoritarian problem in the United States will not disappear overnight, and serious strengthening of our political institutions will be necessary to sustain a healthy American democracy for centuries to come