I suppose that in any reasonable definition of the term, George Bush could be described as an "authoritarian," in that he wants to minimize democratic accountability for himself and is not averse to using force for his own ends and to undermine democratic accountability for his actions.
But "authoritarian" has a very different functional definition among some US leftists (I have rarely seen it used in the sense I'm about to describe by a leftist from outside the US). It's basically some leftists' equivalent of saying "anti-American." They know that "anti-American" is not an appropriate term of derision -- since the right uses it to attack leftists in general, including putative "anti-authoritarians" -- but they use it in the same way to attack other leftists.
And which leftists are "authoritiarians" according to this functional definition? Those who suggest that (1) there are certain standards to which we're all bound to adhere if we're to call ourselves progressives, and we all have some responsibilities as well as the "right" to act out, and we should be held accountable to abiding by collective and democratically-arrived-at decisions; and (2) maybe leftists should do what it takes to actually win, and that more than occasionally involves holding ourselves and others accountable.
Since the hegemonic ideology of US capitalism has a strong dose of the "live and let live" idea, many US leftists also tacitly accept that idea (or at least, many of the white ones do -- most people of color understand from experience that the idea is a mystification from the very beginning, which is why you almost never hear people of color on the left resorting to the "authoritarian" canard), and they think it unseemly to "tell other folk what to do." To them, "telling other folk what to do" comes off as "anti-American," though as I've mentioned before they know that using that term is unacceptable, which is why they use "authoritarian" instead, though they're saying the same thing.
They're saying that holding people accountable to collective decisions is just as bad as enforcing arbitary class rule; occasionally they even employ hilarious cliches like "You're becoming what you hate!" God forbid someone suggest that Venezuela would be justified in jailing bloodthirsty coup plotters; or that leftists are bound to respect union picketlines; or that someone ought to actually edit Z Magazine. Because people who do stuff like that are above all getting too heavy, taking the whole thing too seriously, and maybe even suggesting that the left should win and create a new society with different rules (and rules in and of themselves are a real downer!). And since the "anti-authoritarians" are always in favor of revolution except where it succeeds, they consider leftists who want to actually win to be the most anti-American -- er, "authoritarian" -- of all.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories