Why, yes, as a matter of fact, it can happen here

One of the most ominous developments of the first term of the Obama administration is the obvious contempt that this president, many members of his party, and their fellow-travelers in the media have for individual rights and the concept of constitutional checks and balances. Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin explore the threat of “soft” authoritarianism in this article at City Journal (H/T: Powerline). An excerpt:

Much of the administration’s approach has to do with a change in the nature of liberal politics. Today’s progressives cannot be viewed primarily as pragmatic Truman- or Clinton-style majoritarians. Rather, they resemble the medieval clerical class. Their goal is governmental control over everything from what sort of climate science is permissible to how we choose to live our lives. Many of today’s progressives can be as dogmatic in their beliefs as the most strident evangelical minister or mullah. Like Al Gore declaring the debate over climate change closed, despite the Climategate e-mails and widespread skepticism, the clerisy takes its beliefs as based on absolute truth. Critics lie beyond the pale.

And one of the by-products of depreciating even the legitimacy of the concept of criticism is a tendency to dehumanize the critics, which, as history has shown, can turn so-called “soft” authoritarianism into something far worse. The authors shy away from using the words “civil war”, but the aggressive political and social polarization pursued by this administration in its intense ideological assault on tradition, precedent and the Constitution itself can ultimately have no other conclusion as long as there are millions of people who decline to go peacefully into that liberal fascist night. We have, however, a long history of avoiding that kind of conflict (with one notable exception) through the exercise of our right to vote; make yours count, come November.

Update: Herewith, a recent example of big-government thuggery.