It sort of depends I guess. I’m not a political historian but it depends on what that “authoritarianism” looks like. In general though, wouldnt authoritarianism exist to maintain a strict status quote? In that sense yes I would call it conservative.
But like I said, I’m not a political historian just an idiot with a half baked opinion.
I think the common theme that unites supporters of the surveillance state is control, which is not the same thing as preserving the status quo. You also need control in order to make effective changes to the status quo.
All political movements and all politicians are convinced that their power is 100% legitimate and they should therefore be able to have 100% control of and visibility into everything that's going on.
The idea is compatible with most peoples' definition of democracy. You don't need to support other aspects of authoritarianism usually associated with right or left wing dictatorships.
What's the purpose of this exercise? What's the value of equating one emotionally-charged label with a different emotionally-charged label?
As to your question: yes, most authoritarians are conservative in nature, given that the world has mostly been moving away from authoritarianism over the past few decades.
My point is very simple: Attitudes (among politicians) toward the surveillance state do not seem to split along political lines between left and right. I wish they did.
Also, I completely disagree that the world has mostly been moving away from authoritarianism. On the contrary. There was a time when at least the direction of travel seemed assured. Now I'm no longer so sure.
[Edit] Just so you know where I'm coming from. As someone who would never remotely associate himself with anything "conservative", I wish I could just blame conservatism or right wing authoritarians for this surveillance drive. But I can't honestly do that, and I have to accept that it is not just a right wing idea historically.
Let me elucidate my point further then, as well: I think that any attempt to map a political decision or opinion on a binary scale serves no purpose (other than satisfy our tribalistic vestiges). It doesn't matter if it's left vs right, Tory vs Labour or republican vs democrat. The world just isn't that black and white, no matter how much you wish for it.
So please, debate policies on their content, not on their label. Reducing everything to a binary decision only serves authoritarian agendas.
