Are you categorizing all of trumps actions concerning the 2020 election as "questioning an election result" ? For example, when 60 judges from across the country declare that the election was fair, were trump's actions still just "questioning"?
Yes, that would be questioning the election result by definition, but, more to the point, by questioning strict obedience to the government at the expense of the freedom of the voters, Trump would be acting antithetically to authoritarianism by definition.
There's a difference between "questioning an election result" and "outright stating the election was rigged/false/undemocratic" without any kind of evidence and contrary to all available evidence, telling millions of people this, and then taking steps to try and overturn a democratic election with a false slate of electors and never admitting - regardless of all facts - that you lost.
Supposing so, are you able to articulate how this would be an "authoritarian leaning" (per thread title)?
Which is more authoritarian: the person who acknowledges the legitimate results of a democratic election, or the person who - regardless of how much evidence shows to the contrary - asserts that the popular vote of a democratic election is false and should be overturned in their favour and draws up fake electors and organises a mass protest against the election being ratified?
acknowledging the legitimate results of an election, sounds exactly like you are favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, and if you do so at the expense of the freedom of the people to question the result of the election, then you are undoubtedly being authoritarian by definition.
Moreover, the freedom of people to seek lawful remedy or to protest is antithetical to authoritarianism.
See, when you actually look at what people actually do and what actually occurred, the framing of "questioning the election result" is an incredibly obvious manipulation.
To be clear, the OP suggested that Vance not admitting that Trump lost the election is authoritarian. But if you favor, compelled speech, that is forcing Vance to say Trump lost the election, then you have an authoritarian leaning. In other words, you would favor the enforcement of authority over Vance's right to free speech.
A man deliberately and knowingly shouted "fire" in a crowded theatre when they knew there was no fire. The resulting panic resulted in several people being trampled to death, dozens of severe injuries and significant damage to the building.
"Well, what's wrong with letting people know there's a fire?"
Do you think shouting fire in a crowded theatre is an example of authoritarian behavior? If so, why?
What matters is the motive & surrounding pattern
of behavior in "questioning" (actually challenging)
an election. Vance repeats the lie that the election
was stolen, & has no criticism of Trump's many efforts
to overturn it. So Vance's tacit & not-so-tacit support
for Trump's treasonous attempt to over-throw the
government are indeed authoritarian.
Can you explain how the "motive & surrounding pattern of behavior" is, in your view, authoritarian rather than anti-authoritarian?
