Forum

Is your state stuck in passive authoritarianism? What is it, and why is it so damaging?

Two prime examples of passive authoritarianism are California and New York. These two states symbolize America’s cultural influence, wealth, and progressive ideals and are also leading the nation in crises that should be solvable but persist year after year.

Both states boast massive budgets, decades of single-party dominance, and some of the most sophisticated economies in the world. Yet homelessness grows, housing is unaffordable, infrastructure is strained, and residents are leaving in record numbers. The root of the problem is not the lack of resources but a form of leadership that prioritizes holding power over using it.

This type of leader fights fiercely against authority when they’re not in control, but once they’ve secured the top seat, their drive for reform slows to a crawl. Leadership becomes a trophy, not a tool. Risk-taking is avoided, not because the challenges are insurmountable, but because bold moves could upset the political balance that keeps them in power.

Such is the case with California, filled to the brim with wealth amid visible decay, but why the decay?

California’s GDP is over $4.2 trillion, the fifth-largest economy in the world if it were a country. It has a state budget exceeding $300 billion. Yet its homelessness crisis is the worst in the nation, with over 180,000 homeless residents in 2023, accounting for nearly one-third of all homeless people in the United States. Billions have been poured into housing and services, $17 billion between 2018 and 2022, but encampments still line the streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland.

The root causes, restrictive zoning laws, a byzantine permitting process, and environmental regulations that can add hundreds of thousands to housing costs, are rarely touched. Addressing them would mean challenging unions, developers, and local governments that make up a powerful political base.

Instead, California often opts for high-profile spending packages and short-term programs that create the appearance of action without real systemic reform, and there is no end in sight.

Meanwhile, nearly 900,000 people left California between 2021 and 2023, citing high costs, taxes, and declining quality of life. The result is a slow but steady hollowing-out of the state’s middle class.

But California is not an isolated case; it is just one of the many states that have embraced a liberal passive authoritarianism. Think this is a reach? Keep reading to find out the real truth.

When the state of New York comes to mind, it usually brings with it the thought of high taxes, low trust, and the same profile as California has but in New York style.

New York faces a similar crisis of leadership. With a state budget of $229 billion, it has the financial means to modernize transit, address public housing decay, and expand affordable housing. Instead, it contends with chronic subway breakdowns, a housing shortage that pushes rents in New York City to record highs, and a public safety climate defined by political whiplash. Crime spikes provoke reactionary policy changes, which are then rolled back when they become politically inconvenient.

The tax burden is the nation’s highest, with residents paying an average of 14.1% of their income to state and local taxes. Yet between mid-2021 and mid-2022, 299,557 residents left the state, second only to California in outbound migration. The people leaving are often middle-income earners and small business owners, the very demographic needed to sustain long-term economic vigor.

It appears that the main tool of operating the state and city of New York is the deployment of inaction as a strategy!

In both states, persistent problems can paradoxically reinforce political control. When voters believe there are no credible alternatives, incumbents can survive wave after wave of public dissatisfaction. This is where passive authoritarianism thrives: by preserving dependence on the existing political machine and by signaling that leadership is so secure it can survive doing nothing of substance.

The cost is corrosive. Trust erodes. Reformers burn out or move away. Policy debates become less about solutions and more about protecting turf, but can there be a turnaround, or are California and New York doomed?

Doomed, if these blue states and cities refuse to change their points of view and operational system. What would a turnaround look like?

Other states have faced similar challenges and managed meaningful turnarounds, often because leaders used political capital to take risks rather than hoard it.

• Texas dramatically streamlined its building approval process, allowing housing supply to expand and slowing price inflation in many urban areas. While the state still faces its own housing pressures, a willingness to reform zoning laws kept it from the kind of extreme shortages seen in California and New York.
• Florida aggressively tackled infrastructure bottlenecks by creating dedicated funding streams that could not be easily raided for unrelated projects. The result: faster completion of highway and port expansions, supporting both commerce and commuting.

These examples show that change is possible when leaders are willing to risk political backlash in the service of public benefit.

California and New York still have every advantage they need to reverse course: wealth, talent, and international influence. But until the political culture shifts from preserving control to pursuing results, their vast resources will continue to be consumed by appearances rather than solutions.

The liberal method of management is infested with passive authoritarianism and thus hates anyone who challenges their self-ordained kingdom. Donald Trump is the antithesis of their mode of operation; therefore, the liberal regimes must stop him and all he represents or they could be proved wrong , inefficient and irrelevant.

Trump and the MAGA movement focus on achieving results, even if it means upsetting everyone in their path; however, their intentions are not selfish but aimed at making America great again.

This is the opposite of the liberal management system of passive authoritarianism and holding the power and deflecting any responsibility, thus enjoying their ability to say ‘yes or no’  in the face of opposition.  

Final Word: The real issue is who really holds the power. The liberals wish it was them, and the conservatives want it to be the republic, but in reality, it is you.