IS THE NEW YORK TIMES A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER? OF COURSE IT IS. Is There Such a Thing as an Authoritarian Voter? Political scientists want to know. They’re not the only ones.

Control-F, “Hillary,” or “Clinton” yields no returns from the article, which derives from a nearly 70-year old study by Marxist Frankford School mainstay Theodor Adorno, one of the stars of Michael Walsh’s brilliant 2015 book, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace. Adorno equated conservatism with fascism, which was a classic Soviet-inspired smear.

In addition to its reliance on Adorno, Hillary’s omission from the article seems rather odd, because over the years, she has said, “We’re going to take things from you on behalf of the common good.” She can’t say if gun ownership is a constitutional right. “When told [in 1993 that HillaryCare] could bankrupt small businesses, Mrs. Clinton sighed, ‘I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America,’” the late Tony Snow wrote in 1999. In 2016, she smiled as she said that, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Why, there’s been a whole book written about Hillary’s love of, well, Liberal Fascism, for want of a better phrase.

As Daniel Oliver, director of Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in San Francisco, wrote in 2016, “Progressivism — the proper name for the governing philosophy of those people who used to be called ‘liberals’ — is inherently authoritarian, and its primary products are lamentation, and mourning, and woe.”

All of that being said, shouldn’t the New York Times be in favor of a whole nation full of authoritarian voters? Or is that strictly the province of the “We Are All Socialists Now” Washington Post? Think of how much better the sex will be!

(Classical reference in headline.)