How Liberal Failures Serve Authoritarian Goals
The houselessness crisis in major urban centers, especially those governed by liberal administrations, has become a powerful driver of strongman politics and authoritarianism. In cities like Portland, Oregon, New York City, and many others, the visibility of homelessness has stoked public frustration, fear, and resentment, creating fertile ground for politicians who promise "law and order" solutions to an issue that, in reality, demands systemic social reform. Instead of addressing the root causes—such as lack of affordable housing, mental health services, and economic inequality—authoritarian-leaning leaders exploit the situation by advocating for punitive measures, surveillance, and the criminalization of poverty.
Public Frustration and the Appeal of "Law and Order"
As homelessness becomes more visible, especially in areas known for their progressive politics, frustration grows among residents who perceive homelessness as a threat to public safety, property values, and quality of life. They tend to reduce the issue to public safety, which frightened people are apt to do, inviting criminalization of houseless people. Politicians looking to capitalize on this discontent adopt “law and order” platforms, pledging to “clean up” the streets and restore order.
These leaders frame homelessness as a public nuisance rather than a symptom of broader social issues, appealing to voters who feel liberal policies have failed. This rhetoric shifts focus from systemic failures to individual responsibility, reducing empathy and increasing support for authoritarian solutions.
Portland, Oregon: Criminalization of Homelessness and Authoritarian Solutions
In Portland, the homelessness crisis has intensified in recent years, with tents and makeshift shelters becoming common in public spaces. Liberal policies, intended to balance public safety with the rights of the unhoused, have faced backlash from residents who argue these measures are too lenient.
This frustration has fueled support for more authoritarian approaches, such as aggressive policing of homeless encampments and proposals for “no camping” zones. In 2022, Portland’s city council passed ordinances allowing for more frequent sweeps of homeless encampments. These sweeps often prioritize the removal of visible “eyesores” over providing long-term solutions like affordable housing or mental health services.
By criminalizing homelessness and increasing police presence, these policies inadvertently create a power imbalance where the state exerts control over vulnerable populations, reinforcing the idea that public order justifies authoritarian tactics. This approach marginalizes houseless individuals and stokes resentment, which can then be manipulated to justify further crackdowns.
New York City: Surveillance, Police Presence, and Forced Institutionalization
In New York City, former Mayor Bill de Blasio and current Mayor Eric Adams both faced intense pressure to address homelessness, especially in high-visibility areas like Manhattan. De Blasio’s administration deployed increased police presence in subway stations and public spaces to move unhoused individuals out of sight, while Mayor Adams has expanded on these tactics.
Adams implemented policies that involve forcibly institutionalizing unhoused people with mental health issues, allowing law enforcement to detain individuals they perceive as a danger to themselves or others. This policy grants police broad discretion to remove individuals from public spaces, a tactic that prioritizes containment over compassion.
New York’s approach illustrates a strongman tactic: using police to remove “undesirable” populations under the guise of mental health care. This has led to widespread concerns about civil liberties and human rights, as well as fears that other marginalized groups could be similarly targeted in the future. The increase in police presence and surveillance of unhoused populations creates a precedent for policing vulnerable communities and sets the stage for normalizing authoritarian practices in the name of public order.
The Slippery Slope of Authoritarian Responses to Poverty
Authoritarian responses to homelessness—such as increased surveillance, police sweeps, forced institutionalization, and criminalization of public sleeping or begging—can set dangerous precedents. When houselessness is framed as a threat to public order, authoritarian leaders gain leverage to pass more restrictive policies, eroding civil liberties and human rights.
These measures also expand the power of law enforcement, normalize militarized policing, and reinforce surveillance infrastructure. This sets up a “slippery slope” where authoritarian measures, initially justified to address homelessness, become tools that can easily be expanded to monitor and control other marginalized groups.
Perceived threats to public safety also tap a cultural inclination toward authoritarianism that most of us must police within ourselves. Authoritarian family relations, and relations with employers, etc., normalize the idea that authoritarianism can be a net positive in certain situations. For instance, you may be a very lenient, free-range parent who avoids intimidating and reprimanding your children, but not when one of them is walking into traffic.
Impact on Public Perception and Support for Authoritarianism
Public resentment toward houselessness, particularly when it is visible in public parks, sidewalks, and transit stations, can push voters toward leaders who promise swift, punitive solutions. When liberal policies are perceived as ineffective, the public may turn to strongman figures who portray themselves as “tough on crime” or defenders of public order.
By framing houselessness as an issue of lawlessness rather than an outcome of systemic inequality, these leaders can rally support for policies that erode civil liberties under the guise of “security.” This reinforces the notion that authoritarian tactics are necessary and even desirable, ultimately undermining democratic norms.
Business Interests and the Criminalization of Homelessness
In urban areas heavily affected by homelessness—like those with large retail sectors, development projects, and busy restaurant districts—businesses face real challenges. Their influence often drives policies that criminalize homelessness rather than addressing its root causes.
Common outcomes of this influence include:
Police sweeps: Clearing encampments and removing people from visible locations.
Anti-camping ordinances: Laws that prevent people from sleeping in public areas.
“No sitting” laws: Measures that prohibit sitting or lying down in public spaces.
These policies shift cities’ priorities away from public space and toward private business interests, effectively criminalizing visible poverty without solving the underlying issues.
While these measures may make businesses feel their properties are safer, more “comfortable” for patrons, and urban spaces “cleaner,” they don’t reduce homelessness; they only push it out of sight.
The alignment of business interests with punitive measures against homelessness creates a battleground where vulnerable people are marginalized further. This fuels public frustration and resentment, creating fertile ground for authoritarian figures who frame the issue as a matter of “law and order.”
The Potential for Alliances with Paramilitary Authoritarians
Small business owners, frustrated by local governments’ perceived inability to “solve” homelessness, sometimes look for support outside official channels. This creates an entry point for grassroots paramilitary groups like the Proud Boys.
These groups often offer:
Protection: Acting as vigilante “security” in areas affected by homelessness.
Vigilance: Taking direct action to remove unhoused individuals.
Alliance-building: Establishing relationships with business owners disillusioned by liberal city administrations.
Examples:
In Portland, far-right groups have patrolled areas impacted by protests and homelessness, claiming to “support local business.”
This shift brings a dangerous element into public spaces, normalizing authoritarian tactics as paramilitary groups align with private interests.
Small business owners may see these alliances as necessary “protection.” However, this normalizes the presence of authoritarian paramilitaries in public spaces, eroding the rule of law and creating an atmosphere of fear and surveillance.
As small businesses, feeling vulnerable from city inaction, turn to paramilitary groups, it shifts the political climate closer to authoritarianism. These groups advocate for a version of “security” rooted in power and intimidation rather than community safety, and their collaboration with business interests grants them legitimacy that is difficult to counter.
Conclusion: Houselessness as a Catalyst for Authoritarianism
In cities like Portland and New York, the houselessness crisis has created an environment where strongman politics can thrive. By framing homelessness as a threat rather than a systemic issue, politicians appeal to public frustration and drive support for authoritarian responses. As these measures expand, they create an infrastructure of control that extends beyond homelessness, eroding civil liberties and normalizing a “security-first” mindset. Ultimately, addressing homelessness through authoritarian tactics not only fails to solve the problem but also accelerates the drift toward a more authoritarian society, where social inequalities are punished rather than resolved.
The dynamics described here can be triggered by many punitive responses to social problems. We should keep in mind that authoritarians exploit liberal failures in order to popularize authoritarian solutions, creating paths to power for politicians who favor repressive policies and practices as solutions to social problems.